That's what cops are paid for: to take dangerous risks for public safety. BTW, it's not that they ram the car; it's that they let it ram them. Slow down gently. After all, it doesn't matter if it takes a few minutes to slow down.
You pull in front of it and fire one round into the radiator. If you can't hit a car radiator from ten meters, you should never, ever carry a gun. Have you ever looked under the hood of a car?
And so French police have never considered that simply finding a long stretch of straight road and pulling a cruiser or two in front of the guy and allowing him to gently ram them from behind - then using the cruiser's brakes to slow the pair down - would be a lot safer? So what if they get banged up?
He doesn't have a cell phone, doesn't call anyone, and not a single police officer bothers to pull up beside him and yell "Put it in neutral!"? Steering locks in the US only engage when you are in park. Are you telling me that European automatics don't have a steerable neutral? How the hell do you tow something?
Wrong, bullshit. You can easily steer down to around 5 mph. I did it in my first car, which had broken power steering. Parallel parking was a lot of work, but getting in and out of nose-in is a piece of cake.
If I wanted to shoot people, I'd have joined the army.
That said, speeding is a minor crime. Theft is not; it is quite literally stealing a part of someone's life. I could be convinced to have some tolerance for shoplifters, I suppose, but someone who is stealing your car deserves nothing. I'm glad that he killed the bastard. You are not. I cannot imagine that one of us will convince the other when we disagree so fundamentally about the nature of what it means to own anything.
Incidentally, I would take that comment by Fox a step further: societies have to have some malum prohibitum in order for things to work, but we have far too many, and it distracts efforts that should be expended on malum in se.
Why not? He bought the car with his money. They're stealing the hours of his life that he would have to work to buy another one. By what right is it theirs instead of his? I wouldn't think twice about killing someone who tried to steal my car or break into my house. If it turns out they're unarmed, well, that's a sad thing, but there's no way that anyone can know that the perp isn't armed. If they are, and if it turns out their goal is to gang rape your family instead of stealing a TV, can you kill them then in your "civilized society"? And if so, then how do you know what they're thinking?
Read the article: the man came out of his house (which means opening the door and crossing the distance to the street) with a loaded gun. Thirteen shots hit, which sounds to me like the little piece of shit was aggressively coming toward the clearly armed man. (Why, you ask? The article isn't sympathetic to the victim of this crime, and so if he had shot the thief in the back I'm pretty sure the police would have leaked that and the paper would have reported it.) When you're carrying a gun and someone tries to attack you, it's pretty hard to pretend that they don't have deadly intent. The thief got exactly what all thieves deserve. I oppose the judicial death penalty because I find the criminal justice system in the US to be untrustworthy at all levels, and you can't bring someone back who's been railroaded, but someone shot to death in flagrante delicto got what was coming to them.
If the victim in this story had been armed, he would still be alive and a couple of murderous redneck teenagers would be dead, with the added bonus that nobody would have to pay to incarcerate their worthless asses.
Resisting lawful arrest with a gun might merit deadly force, you mean. It is entirely legal to resist unlawful arrest, though that doesn't necessarily mean it's a good idea in all circumstances. You should also remember that lots of cops are gun nuts too - they'd be on our side.
That sounds like driving in Massachusetts, which is full of asshole drivers but at least they get there fast. Go spend some time in Virginia away from DC if you want to see people who simply can't drive.
No, I'm not, which is why I said "Freedom wears a crown". I thought it was a pretty clearly written comment, but as the proof of a pudding is in the eating, so the proof of a sentence is in the reading, and I obviously failed that. I was responding to a statement that said
There's something you owe the french
Which would perhaps carry weight if the French hadn't very shortly thereafter killed the man who actually made it happen. As for the Constitution, as I said, Montesquieu was a strong influence but his ideas were more part of the intellectual milieu of the time than a very specific blueprint for what to do. If there were no Frenchmen, the American Revolution would have been a much harder fight and we might well have lost it, but that's not the same as saying that we owe it to the French en masse. The French role in the AR is much more like the role of the US in WWI - a late belligerent that made the winning side's job a lot easier with non-combat action long before it officially jumped in.
Don't be silly. There is no real equivalent to the European Right in America, either (most Tories would almost certainly be called Republicans In Name Only, or RINOs). There hasn't been since the South's plantation aristocracy was smashed. Doesn't mean politics doesn't have sides.
Are right- or left-leaners more likely to support the US Supreme Court decision in Citizens United, which protects the ability of organizations to speak? It's the most analogous legal finding over here, and yet it's almost universally abused by the left side of American politics, which is populated by people who apparently can't imagine ever being out of power.
This is the fundamental reasoning behind the Citizens United decision, which takes power out of the hands of media corporations and gives it to others. This pisses off people who don't want the rabble to talk about things they don't like. Some people are incapable of seeing beyond the political moment to recognize when fundamental rights are involved, and others are just thugs who don't care.
No, that's something we owe Louis XVI. France was most assuredly not a democratic state at the time. As for the Constitution, Montesquieu was a large influence, no doubt, but again was not exactly a democrat or even a supporter of American independence. Freedom wears a crown, eh?
Your handwriting is bad but not utterly incomprehensible. Not a point of pride, I might add - you may as well be illiterate if you can't write. You should learn to write a clear hand of some sort when dealing with others. I have been known to resort to block print occasionally in order to ensure that anything I write is comprehensible to all.
Facebook moat: prestige. Started as.edu-only, which kept the user base limited to college students (k12's don't get.edu addresses, usually). No longer relevant but no longer needed; it was an intermediate step for them.
Slashdot Mirror
That's what cops are paid for: to take dangerous risks for public safety. BTW, it's not that they ram the car; it's that they let it ram them. Slow down gently. After all, it doesn't matter if it takes a few minutes to slow down.
Where on earth is this true? And even if so, who's going to arrest them?
You pull in front of it and fire one round into the radiator. If you can't hit a car radiator from ten meters, you should never, ever carry a gun. Have you ever looked under the hood of a car?
And so French police have never considered that simply finding a long stretch of straight road and pulling a cruiser or two in front of the guy and allowing him to gently ram them from behind - then using the cruiser's brakes to slow the pair down - would be a lot safer? So what if they get banged up?
He doesn't have a cell phone, doesn't call anyone, and not a single police officer bothers to pull up beside him and yell "Put it in neutral!"? Steering locks in the US only engage when you are in park. Are you telling me that European automatics don't have a steerable neutral? How the hell do you tow something?
Wrong, bullshit. You can easily steer down to around 5 mph. I did it in my first car, which had broken power steering. Parallel parking was a lot of work, but getting in and out of nose-in is a piece of cake.
Well, so long as you get paid...
If I wanted to shoot people, I'd have joined the army.
That said, speeding is a minor crime. Theft is not; it is quite literally stealing a part of someone's life. I could be convinced to have some tolerance for shoplifters, I suppose, but someone who is stealing your car deserves nothing. I'm glad that he killed the bastard. You are not. I cannot imagine that one of us will convince the other when we disagree so fundamentally about the nature of what it means to own anything.
Incidentally, I would take that comment by Fox a step further: societies have to have some malum prohibitum in order for things to work, but we have far too many, and it distracts efforts that should be expended on malum in se.
Why not? He bought the car with his money. They're stealing the hours of his life that he would have to work to buy another one. By what right is it theirs instead of his? I wouldn't think twice about killing someone who tried to steal my car or break into my house. If it turns out they're unarmed, well, that's a sad thing, but there's no way that anyone can know that the perp isn't armed. If they are, and if it turns out their goal is to gang rape your family instead of stealing a TV, can you kill them then in your "civilized society"? And if so, then how do you know what they're thinking?
Read the article: the man came out of his house (which means opening the door and crossing the distance to the street) with a loaded gun. Thirteen shots hit, which sounds to me like the little piece of shit was aggressively coming toward the clearly armed man. (Why, you ask? The article isn't sympathetic to the victim of this crime, and so if he had shot the thief in the back I'm pretty sure the police would have leaked that and the paper would have reported it.) When you're carrying a gun and someone tries to attack you, it's pretty hard to pretend that they don't have deadly intent. The thief got exactly what all thieves deserve. I oppose the judicial death penalty because I find the criminal justice system in the US to be untrustworthy at all levels, and you can't bring someone back who's been railroaded, but someone shot to death in flagrante delicto got what was coming to them.
If the victim in this story had been armed, he would still be alive and a couple of murderous redneck teenagers would be dead, with the added bonus that nobody would have to pay to incarcerate their worthless asses.
Don't steal shit that isn't yours and you won't get shot.
Resisting lawful arrest with a gun might merit deadly force, you mean. It is entirely legal to resist unlawful arrest, though that doesn't necessarily mean it's a good idea in all circumstances. You should also remember that lots of cops are gun nuts too - they'd be on our side.
That sounds like driving in Massachusetts, which is full of asshole drivers but at least they get there fast. Go spend some time in Virginia away from DC if you want to see people who simply can't drive.
Virginians are the worst drivers in the US. That's the problem.
You're confounding democracy with freedom
No, I'm not, which is why I said "Freedom wears a crown". I thought it was a pretty clearly written comment, but as the proof of a pudding is in the eating, so the proof of a sentence is in the reading, and I obviously failed that. I was responding to a statement that said
There's something you owe the french
Which would perhaps carry weight if the French hadn't very shortly thereafter killed the man who actually made it happen. As for the Constitution, as I said, Montesquieu was a strong influence but his ideas were more part of the intellectual milieu of the time than a very specific blueprint for what to do. If there were no Frenchmen, the American Revolution would have been a much harder fight and we might well have lost it, but that's not the same as saying that we owe it to the French en masse. The French role in the AR is much more like the role of the US in WWI - a late belligerent that made the winning side's job a lot easier with non-combat action long before it officially jumped in.
Don't be silly. There is no real equivalent to the European Right in America, either (most Tories would almost certainly be called Republicans In Name Only, or RINOs). There hasn't been since the South's plantation aristocracy was smashed. Doesn't mean politics doesn't have sides.
Are right- or left-leaners more likely to support the US Supreme Court decision in Citizens United, which protects the ability of organizations to speak? It's the most analogous legal finding over here, and yet it's almost universally abused by the left side of American politics, which is populated by people who apparently can't imagine ever being out of power.
This is the fundamental reasoning behind the Citizens United decision, which takes power out of the hands of media corporations and gives it to others. This pisses off people who don't want the rabble to talk about things they don't like. Some people are incapable of seeing beyond the political moment to recognize when fundamental rights are involved, and others are just thugs who don't care.
No, that's something we owe Louis XVI. France was most assuredly not a democratic state at the time. As for the Constitution, Montesquieu was a large influence, no doubt, but again was not exactly a democrat or even a supporter of American independence. Freedom wears a crown, eh?
Your handwriting is bad but not utterly incomprehensible. Not a point of pride, I might add - you may as well be illiterate if you can't write. You should learn to write a clear hand of some sort when dealing with others. I have been known to resort to block print occasionally in order to ensure that anything I write is comprehensible to all.
That is fucking hilarious.
your username must be mixed case and contain alphabetic and numeric characters
Amex subscribes to this idiocy, though they don't require mixed case. WTF?
through my mail slot
The only way to get mail. Very civilized, sir, very civilized.
until very recently I had to pay per bag of garbage
Well, shit, that sucks. What benighted tip is this, that I might avoid it in my travels?
Facebook moat: prestige. Started as .edu-only, which kept the user base limited to college students (k12's don't get .edu addresses, usually). No longer relevant but no longer needed; it was an intermediate step for them.
Bastard always ran away when I left him with the cabbage. Sometimes he came back with fresh rabbit, sometimes he just stayed gone.
Big talk. Did your former boss submit a bill for the consulting portion?