Agreed. The entire process was sort of surreal. The DA ask you to rate your beliefs' on a scale from 1-5; 1 being in favor of the death penalty %100, 5 being against. Turns out that if rate yourself a 1, you're automatically excused from the jury.
There are many cases of prosecutors withholding evidence in these types of cases, but I can say without a doubt that this wasn't one of them. There was so much evidence that you basically caught the defendant with his hand in the cookie jar; DNA evidence on the victim's body, verified by two independent labs.....text messages on the defendant's phone luring the boy out of his house, security cameras showing the defendants vehicle near the crime scene, etc etc.
I was recently assigned to a jury panel in a murder case. The state I live in has capital punishment.
I went into the courtroom with a fairly solid conviction against the death penalty (excluding military cases, i.e. fratricide, where soldiers should be held to a higher standard and capital punishment could be considered a necessary component of discipline).
As the evidence was presented, I started to question my beliefs. The defendant was accused of murdering and raping a 12 year old boy, and was a twice-convicted sex offender (why he wasn't already in prison is an entirely different question). This person showed no remorse for the crime, and if given life imprisonment, would still be able to see his friends and family....something his victim could no longer do. It really made me question my thoughts on capital punishment.
In the end I wasn't chosen for the jury, and the guy was found guilty. I still believe that capital punishment is wrong and doesn't solve anything, but life imprisonment, although no cake walk, doesn't necessarily equate to justice or punishment...because let's face it, this criminal won't be rehabilitated and shouldn't be given the chance.
This makes sense, but refineries takes years to build and perhaps a decade to come online. They also need to be built next massive water resources (which is why so many in the gulf are next to the Mississippi river) for cooling purposes and barge access.
Well that escalated quickly. I think that with the obvious discrimination against rural-dwellers in your post (and the assumption that I am one), people will decide for themselves who is "civilized".
Wait, why am I wasting my time on this? I usually don't respond to AC's. Have a good one.
My owning a firearm does not affect you in any way whatsoever. I've never fired it at anyone and I never plan on it either. If you're that worried about the your' safety and that of others around you, there are far more deadlier things that can be outlawed (cars, alcohol, high-fructose corn syrup, etc).
I wish I never posed the original question, I'm getting modded into oblivion:-)
After the Newton School shooting you posted on Slashdot that you would be willing to give up your second amendment right to prevent something like that from happening again. What other rights would you be willing to give up?
This begs the quesion......if Snowden hadn't released this info, would this "change" be taking place? I wish I could say that this was an admission from the White House that what he did was right, but we know that's not the truth.
This is why I laugh when I read articles about self-driving cars and car-to-car communication. The police will hate this because it will absolutely ruin ticket revenue.
This. This is what most aren't understanding about this. We really don't get snow here....more like sleet that barely accumulates. Most of the roads and almost all the bridges had 2-inch thick sheets of ice on them with hardly any snow (can't speak for Atlanta).
I've driven in place that have 6-inches of snow or more, and it was definitely easier than driving to go through what we got the past few days.
I sure hope things turned OK for your' family in the end.
Here in Baton Rouge, LA schools were closed Tuesday and Wednesday, and the interstate on-ramps for I-12 and I-55 were closed starting Monday morning. We didn't play the same gamble here. Seems like ATL could have looked a few states over and decided to close everything on Tuesday.
The comments sections on quite a few sites were filled with degrading comments for us "sutherns" freakin' out about 2 inches of snow. There are a few things I'd like to point out before this thread fills with the same stuff:
1) I'm in Louisiana. I can count the times it's snowed like this on one hand in my 36 years here. We don't get much of a chance to practice winter driving.
2) We're simply not equipped to deal with the snow. We don't have snow plows or salting/sanding machines. Yes, I still feel that purchasing this type of equipment is a waste of taxpayer money to prepare for an event that happens maybe for one day every 5 years at the most. Do you see Rhode Island spending money on earthquake proof buildings for example?
3) It was more of a problem with ice than snow. The roads had started to form a pretty thick layer of ice on Monday morning (I know because I had to drive through it).
That said, here in Louisiana roads and schools were closed starting on Monday afternoon. I'm not sure what Atlanta was thinking to wait until Tuesday to do this, but like the article says, there could have been uproar if they cried wolf.
Not trying to keep harping on the Falklands', but the Argentinians did fire their last Exocet at HMS Invincible on May 30, 1982. The Argentinians claim the missile hit it's mark; the British deny this, and Invincible didn't show any signs of damage after returning to the U.K.
These are all valid arguments. There are too many factors to consider in a potential conflict, such as the stockpile of anti-ship missiles, the type used, range, defensive measures, and tactical considerations, that you just can't rule out carriers as an obsolete relic from the 20th century.
Quite a few people on here lately have been talking about how vulnerable aircraft carriers are to anti-ship missiles, and I think that threat is somewhat overstated. Sure anti-ship missiles such as the Exocet racked up an impressive tally in the Falklands War, but they didn't sink the carriers. Why? Because naval commanders realize the risk posed by anti-ship missiles and are willing to risk the destroyer screen to protect the valuable carriers (same techniques were applied against kamikaze). If the Argentinians were able to sink both of the British carriers (or maybe just one), the chances of the British being able to retake the Falklands would have pretty much ended.
The Iraqis also fired two Silkworm missiles at the USS Missouri during the first Gulf War and one was intercepted by a British Sea Dart missile (the other one missed). For all of the talk about the dangers posed against carriers from anti-ship missiles, not a single carrier has been sunk or damages from one, despite numerous opportunities. Naval commanders understand the risk, and have developed the necessary tactics and defenses to protect the carriers from this threat.
Slashdot Mirror
Agreed. The entire process was sort of surreal. The DA ask you to rate your beliefs' on a scale from 1-5; 1 being in favor of the death penalty %100, 5 being against. Turns out that if rate yourself a 1, you're automatically excused from the jury.
There are many cases of prosecutors withholding evidence in these types of cases, but I can say without a doubt that this wasn't one of them. There was so much evidence that you basically caught the defendant with his hand in the cookie jar; DNA evidence on the victim's body, verified by two independent labs.....text messages on the defendant's phone luring the boy out of his house, security cameras showing the defendants vehicle near the crime scene, etc etc.
I was recently assigned to a jury panel in a murder case. The state I live in has capital punishment.
I went into the courtroom with a fairly solid conviction against the death penalty (excluding military cases, i.e. fratricide, where soldiers should be held to a higher standard and capital punishment could be considered a necessary component of discipline).
As the evidence was presented, I started to question my beliefs. The defendant was accused of murdering and raping a 12 year old boy, and was a twice-convicted sex offender (why he wasn't already in prison is an entirely different question). This person showed no remorse for the crime, and if given life imprisonment, would still be able to see his friends and family....something his victim could no longer do. It really made me question my thoughts on capital punishment.
In the end I wasn't chosen for the jury, and the guy was found guilty. I still believe that capital punishment is wrong and doesn't solve anything, but life imprisonment, although no cake walk, doesn't necessarily equate to justice or punishment...because let's face it, this criminal won't be rehabilitated and shouldn't be given the chance.
A lot of CP/M machines had them too. I have a TRS-80 Model 4p at home that has two built-in 8" drives.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T...
This makes sense, but refineries takes years to build and perhaps a decade to come online. They also need to be built next massive water resources (which is why so many in the gulf are next to the Mississippi river) for cooling purposes and barge access.
A nice dramatization of this is in the 1998 HBO special "From The Earth to The Moon 5: Spider". You can get it on Netflix.
I don't have to. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/D...
Well that escalated quickly. I think that with the obvious discrimination against rural-dwellers in your post (and the assumption that I am one), people will decide for themselves who is "civilized".
Wait, why am I wasting my time on this? I usually don't respond to AC's. Have a good one.
My owning a firearm does not affect you in any way whatsoever. I've never fired it at anyone and I never plan on it either. If you're that worried about the your' safety and that of others around you, there are far more deadlier things that can be outlawed (cars, alcohol, high-fructose corn syrup, etc).
I wish I never posed the original question, I'm getting modded into oblivion :-)
You think the government actually keeps you safe and free?
That's cute; you just keep believing that.
After the Newton School shooting you posted on Slashdot that you would be willing to give up your second amendment right to prevent something like that from happening again. What other rights would you be willing to give up?
This begs the quesion......if Snowden hadn't released this info, would this "change" be taking place? I wish I could say that this was an admission from the White House that what he did was right, but we know that's not the truth.
So should this extend to private flights?
This is why I laugh when I read articles about self-driving cars and car-to-car communication. The police will hate this because it will absolutely ruin ticket revenue.
Thank you, that was the case in Baton Rouge as well. I'm really surprised at how well we handled this.
Serious question.....3-6 inches of ice without snow? Like an ice skating rink?
Serious question......3-6 inches of ice, with no snow on it? Similar to an ice skating rink?
This. This is what most aren't understanding about this. We really don't get snow here....more like sleet that barely accumulates. Most of the roads and almost all the bridges had 2-inch thick sheets of ice on them with hardly any snow (can't speak for Atlanta).
I've driven in place that have 6-inches of snow or more, and it was definitely easier than driving to go through what we got the past few days.
As stated in my post and earlier in this thread, it was "every 5 years at the most". There are some 8-9 year intervals in there.
"every 5 years at the MOST"
FTFY.
I sure hope things turned OK for your' family in the end.
Here in Baton Rouge, LA schools were closed Tuesday and Wednesday, and the interstate on-ramps for I-12 and I-55 were closed starting Monday morning. We didn't play the same gamble here. Seems like ATL could have looked a few states over and decided to close everything on Tuesday.
The comments sections on quite a few sites were filled with degrading comments for us "sutherns" freakin' out about 2 inches of snow. There are a few things I'd like to point out before this thread fills with the same stuff:
1) I'm in Louisiana. I can count the times it's snowed like this on one hand in my 36 years here. We don't get much of a chance to practice winter driving.
2) We're simply not equipped to deal with the snow. We don't have snow plows or salting/sanding machines. Yes, I still feel that purchasing this type of equipment is a waste of taxpayer money to prepare for an event that happens maybe for one day every 5 years at the most. Do you see Rhode Island spending money on earthquake proof buildings for example?
3) It was more of a problem with ice than snow. The roads had started to form a pretty thick layer of ice on Monday morning (I know because I had to drive through it).
That said, here in Louisiana roads and schools were closed starting on Monday afternoon. I'm not sure what Atlanta was thinking to wait until Tuesday to do this, but like the article says, there could have been uproar if they cried wolf.
So you're suggesting that anti-ship missiles have improved but the defensive systems haven't?
Not trying to keep harping on the Falklands', but the Argentinians did fire their last Exocet at HMS Invincible on May 30, 1982. The Argentinians claim the missile hit it's mark; the British deny this, and Invincible didn't show any signs of damage after returning to the U.K.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F...
These are all valid arguments. There are too many factors to consider in a potential conflict, such as the stockpile of anti-ship missiles, the type used, range, defensive measures, and tactical considerations, that you just can't rule out carriers as an obsolete relic from the 20th century.
Quite a few people on here lately have been talking about how vulnerable aircraft carriers are to anti-ship missiles, and I think that threat is somewhat overstated. Sure anti-ship missiles such as the Exocet racked up an impressive tally in the Falklands War, but they didn't sink the carriers. Why? Because naval commanders realize the risk posed by anti-ship missiles and are willing to risk the destroyer screen to protect the valuable carriers (same techniques were applied against kamikaze). If the Argentinians were able to sink both of the British carriers (or maybe just one), the chances of the British being able to retake the Falklands would have pretty much ended.
The Iraqis also fired two Silkworm missiles at the USS Missouri during the first Gulf War and one was intercepted by a British Sea Dart missile (the other one missed). For all of the talk about the dangers posed against carriers from anti-ship missiles, not a single carrier has been sunk or damages from one, despite numerous opportunities. Naval commanders understand the risk, and have developed the necessary tactics and defenses to protect the carriers from this threat.