bigbearfng

Well, IMO, that wasn't a 'Bad' decision, even though it was the 'wrong' one (or maybe the other way around?). The (now dead) citizen caused the actions that resulted in his getting shot. Accidentally and stupidly, but I see that shooting as "justified." There are more than a few current examples, though, of the cop's actions that were the primary cause. Sneaking up close behind someone, hollering "FREEZE" and then shooting him when he jumps and turns around. Opening fire on a vehicle that only loosely matches the description of the suspect vehicle (and doesn't match at all when given anything more than superficial examination) because it's "driving slowly." Pulling up within easy pistol shot of a "man with a gun" subject and then shooting almost instantly when the kid reaches for the object. Getting out of the squad car after a high speed chase seems to be over, then opening fire on the suspect car when it turns out not to be disabled or stuck because they were afraid he was trying to run them over (although it's pretty clear he was just trying to escape). All of those are attributable to really bad tactics on the part of the cops. Not "split second" decisions. The primary "bad tactic" seems to be the "run toward the sound of the guns." If it's not a life or death situation, hang back a second and see what the hell is going on. One thing I was taught is that "It's almost never what it looks like at first glance." Totally agree on the bad tactics part above. Whether it's inadequate training or adrenaline control/heat of the moment or whatever you want to call it vs anything intentional has to be looked at individually. Only thing I had to disagree with was the "run toward the sound of guns" as bad tactics. Active shooter in school/mall etc.- the longer you hang back the more victims there are. That's just part of the job! Other folk run away......

Out of curiosity... If you put someone through the simulations, at the end of the day how many scenarios were "shoot" and how many were "no shoot." completely variable. An instructor runs the simulation from behind you, and it is interactive. In the scenarios it depends on your response. One example of a simple scenario-I had a traffic stop. My partner approached the van which suddenly reversed hitting him and he's lying unresponsive on the ground. The driver then exits and runs towards me pulling an object out of a back pocket. I fired. My scenario was the driver was a dufus that accidently hit the gas in reverse and was being further stupid by reaching for his wallet rapidly while running towards me. The next dep got the same scenario-however his was a bad guy pulling out a gun, not a wallet. The dep hesitated and was shot. It gives you a sense of real world split second decisions that cops face without the luxury of Monday morning quarterbacking.

Cops shoot over 400 civilians every year on average, many of them unarmed and guilty of nothing. _________________________________________________ Sure do wish I could put all the folk living in lala land thru a day long shoot/don't shoot scenario training class.......

OK, call it droplet-either way it sure as hell isn't just direct contact! The way the CDC keeps changing their line really bothers me. It does have great scientists and doctors working there, but it's run by a bunch of damn politicians.

Dgit Bounce bingo

Everyone who is freaking out seems to ignore how Ebola is transmitted, and how little risk is associated with casual contact. ______________________________________________ I say bullshit on CDC- they say that and gave recommendations to the hospital of basic PPEs for exposure contact. When the nurses expressed concern over exposed skin the hospital administration told them to put tape over their necks....what bullshit. But then CDC wears full protection themselves. If the infected person sneezes it can be in the droplets..... I'd call that AIRBORNE.

I would NEVER send someone on a tandem with you Stayhigh-could you please let us know where you throw drogues? So I can add it to the list of where I will never send any of my friends or family for tandem or aff. What's that saying? Vote with your feet and your dollars!

I had a chop without rsl-spinning mal and got tossed when I chopped. Someone on the ground asked me later if I waited to get stable. Nope! I was looking at that handle when I chopped and it was no where near where I expected it after. It took a few grabs to ahold of it and it felt SOOOOO GOOOOD when I got my hand in it. So for me it will always be a D handle.

Sorry about your friends that were really good. How ever, this friend of mine is alive and well as you and I some 15 years later. Well, I guess that make him REALLY GOOD! Think you missed my point. I believe it was mjosparky that said something along the lines of no ones good enough that you can't die in this sport.

Sorry but some of my friends that are now dead were REALLY good too.....

your level of confusion on this subject matches your confusion on how to use the markup language for this forum. I realize there's not a lot of people that have had to deal with the realities, not just politics or personal interests. Changes needed to the database-sure. In the works is deciding on risk factor and registration status based on elements of the crime admitted to in court-not just what it was pled down to. The reality is the whole system depends on the plea bargain to keep moving. And a plea bargain equals reduced charges. So if there's a no post drunk urinater that ended up having to register, then absolutely take him off the registry. BTW, I've stated mine-what's the source of your clarity/personal interest?

I think you might be confused. Nope, not confused one damn bit.

I've seen this claim before, but it defies any reason. What part of this defies reason? You need a babysitter. Your neighbor offers. You look him up-see him on the public database and say no thanks. The guy applies/volunteers to work with kids-volunteer coach/at church/ delivering kids bouncers etc. Look him up and say no thanks. It's there-use it. It defies reason because you describe a tiny subset of situations where your child and the mindless child molester come into contact. Are you expecting all of them to offer their name and address up front? ___________________________________________ Anyone that doesn't at least know the name of who they're leaving their child with??????????????? _______________________________________ And are you asking your neighbor for a driver's license, or just looking up the name and address? Does the church do this for every one of their members? _____________________________________ Anytime a person will be supervising kids-hell yes check their name. And for all the folk worried about a PC314 putting you on the "list". Even if you shook it out in the middle of the store you won't be on the public list-it's a no post. Go to www.meganslaw.ca.gov and read up on exclusions etc. Granted this is Calif. specific. _______________________________________ I realize this is SC and some folk just want to disagree for the sake of disagreement, but............ I guess some folk will never "get it" unless it happens to them or their family-and I hope you never have to go thru that hell. Irony factor here-comparing the outpouring of support for the transsexual that came out in the forums vs. the lack of for a victim that publicly spoke out here. Pretty damn sad.

If I can add to anyone's awareness I will. All of you that have kids, like to take their pics with your smart phone and post them to facebook. Please make sure to turn off the gps for pictures on your phone. If you don't the location of where the picture was taken is easily obtained, plug it in to google maps and they know where your child lives, goes to school etc. Some of these guys have already put this info on the net for others of their kind.

(as opposed to mere possession of images) _____________________________________________ And I've already addressed the apologists for kid porn viewpoint.

I've seen this claim before, but it defies any reason. What part of this defies reason? You need a babysitter. Your neighbor offers. You look him up-see him on the public database and say no thanks. The guy applies/volunteers to work with kids-volunteer coach/at church/ delivering kids bouncers etc. Look him up and say no thanks. It's there-use it.

Sorry mixed that reply to Billvon in with yours. And nope it's not a "one strike". I've submitted a request on a sex offender before with all records and they said it had to be based on his actual convictions (that were plead down) and not on the elements of the crimes. So denied.

Lots of different areas covered in that article. To start-do I feel sorry for the guy? No. The Adam Walsh Act has many facets to it; the section dealing with incarceration past sentencing has been controversial and always will be. I feel that it was an unknown that is being sorted out and can and should be useful; that's the psychologist's area and there are good and incompetent amongst them as in any profession. As it stands now in order to get a sex offender designated as an SVP (Sexually Violent Predator) it takes numerous horrendous convictions on their record. As for "not true" amongst juvenile offenders-how about when they're older and well out of the juvenile system? I certainly hope no one ever loses site of the victims.

The majority have gotten plea bargains-so their actual conviction is for lot lessor charges. As for the statutory rape/sexual battery convictions they do have to register, however they are no post and don't even show up on the public data bases. As for the apologists for kiddie porn-hey some asshole made that pic of a 10 yr old kid giving him a BJ; think of it this way-if it was your kid victimized wouldn't you want all those guys out there getting off on looking at it have to suffer some consequences? Also otherwise just basic supply and demand with no consequences they're going to keep victimizing kids and putting those pics/videos out there at an even higher rate. As to how I know-years working in a CAC detail. (Crimes Against Children)

Public sex offender data bases are what keeps them from reoffending more often. They don't change. The majority are situational offenders-if they are ever in that same situation again they will reoffend. So everyone knows not to let the guy babysit and he won't reoffend. Then you have the 8% that are always on the hunt-Preferably send their cases to Dexter instead of the DA. And yea-let's not forget about the victims.

BSBD........ I'll be leaving your number on my phone Jeff.

Come on Mark, it's pretty obvious the guy is going for a feel. If any of those girls were your daughter, I would think your take on it would be quite different.

I looked at the pics/then the video. A complete jack ass at minimum. If the girl in the vid was my family there would be charges filed. The DZ are idiots for putting up with his bullshit-the waiver doesn't include sexual assault-which is exactly what it falls under. We already know USPA is weak on dealing with idiots. Ca. PC243.4 (c) Any person who touches an intimate part of another person for the purpose of sexual arousal, sexual gratification, or sexual abuse, and the victim is at the time unconscious of the nature of the act because the perpetrator fraudulently represented that the touching served a professional purpose, is guilty of sexual battery. A violation of this subdivision is punishable by imprisonment in a county jail for not more than one year, and by a fine not exceeding two thousand dollars ($2,000); or by imprisonment in the state prison for two, three, or four years, and by a fine not exceeding ten thousand dollars ($10,000). With all the video of him out there it would not be a difficult case to make. DZO-are you paying attention?

And no helmet cutaway?...........

http://abclocal.go.com/wls/story?section=news/local/chicago_news&id=9427155