Leaderboard

Well said, Robert. But I'd like to add one comment to yours. Seems to me that a lot of this "being insulted" is just an excuse to sue and have an "easy paycheck." Crudely put, but I think relevant to your interpretation.

Haha, the same reason hunting should be banned. People could just go to the store where the meat is made instead of killing an innocent animal.

1. I long ago came to the conclusion that what deodorant I decide to use will be some kind of racial insult to someone.   2. Shortly after I came to conclusion "1" I came to the conclusion that I really didn't care.   I came to that conclusions because even earlier than I made decision "1" I made the decision that I wasn't going to waste one moment of my life worrying about things I can't control and one of the things I can't control are stupid, ignorant people who are looking for a reason to be insulted and believe everything is related to "race".

Don't be fooled into thinking that since you've done it once the next time will be easier.

And then the hippies plug their car into a wall which gets its electricity from burning coal.

Ive heard some people just clean the outside of their ruger pistols, lol.

Fact of the matter was she was conscience, she was moving inside the car and not following commands. Under those same circumstances 99 out of 100 officers would respond by taking control of that person and would not wait around for EMS to show up. I have issue with them leaving her on the pavement but I have ZERO issue with how, when and why they removed her from her vehicle.   Lets see. The incident happened in NM, we are in TN so how does Ohio fit into this? Heck, while we are at it lets cite some obscure law on the Chilean law books to prove that these officers are the most awful, heinous people on earth next to Hitler or Obama. After all an old diabetic women cannot possibly be a threat. Imagine, just for a moment, that there are more women carrying firearms today than probably ever before in history. And we have a women who is conscience but acting very erratic and the officers have ZERO clue whether she has a firearm. So the choice is let her continue to act erractically in her car, where she may have a firearm, or remove her from the car where she doesn't. I will choose to remove them from the vehicle every single time.   Also, the vehicle itself is a very powerful weapon and by all accounts she tried to drive off several times. Yes they can take the keys out of the ignition but not before gaining entry and doing so with a car that is attempting to leave the scene is very dangerous but someone like this must be stopped. And even then I can tell you from personal experience that trying to remove the keys from the ignition when the driver doesn't want you to can be very, very difficult. I tried just turning the ignition off but she turned the car back on and would try to drive away. I agian turned the car off and eventually got them out of the ignition but I wound up wearing a lot of that person's blood that day as I fought her to remove the keys from the ignition. She risked my life that day and affected my life for the next 6 months while I got tested because I was exposed to a significant amount of her blood. The entire time she was screaming she couldn't get another DUI.    Robert, why are you condeming those who pose "what ifs" when you are doing the same thing. Yes, you have done it several times in this thread. You made sure to hold people accountable to a rule you, yourself, will not follow. Seems hypocritical that you are allowed to pose what ifs to support your OPINION yet tell everyone else they better not do the same. Someone said what if the car might catch on fire and you shot them down saying we are not playing the "what if" game then you keep talking about a spinal cord injury, which turned out to be another "what if".   Post #71:   And here you are taking an unnecessary pot shot at LE.  

"Police arrived on the scene to calm the victims as the coroner removed the bodies of 4 fatally wounded attackers, who broke into this home to terrorize a family." This ^^^ would have been a much better headline!

When I drive to visit my family in Missouri, I cross through Cairo IL from KY and am actually in CommieVille for a grand total of 45 seconds. On the trip up, I stop in Wickliffe, a mile before the bridge, unload, lock up pistol, box up ammo, and separate them as far as possible. After that dreadful 45 second ride through Cairo, I stop and re-free myself. On the way back, I do the same in reverse order. Its messed up because I almost feel like a bad guy trying to be sneaky to avoid getting busted, when I am one of the good guys. Absolutely disgusting!

Robert, No one is trying to change your mind. If you think the cops need to be fired, so be it; we get that. But you keep making arguments that the video and the woman’s own statements in the news interview do not support.   We get it that you were a volunteer EMT and that you are focused on the medical aspects of the situation. I would expect no less of a Doctor or a Nurse. But cops have different priorities at accident scenes. Highest priority; make the scene safe. As I said before that comes before medical treatment.   Part of making the scene safe in this situation was removing the driver from physical control of the vehicle. The woman was not unconscious; she said herself that she was conscious, but she was so disoriented that she couldn’t figure out how to open the door. The Officer said she was attempting to move the car. As someone else said when you hear hoof beats think horses; not zebras. It is unfortunate that this woman was having a reaction that made her appear drunk; but it is what it is.   I’m sure that if any of those cops thought the woman was injured they would have used due care. I’m guessing that there was nothing to suggest that. Was it necessary to leave her on the pavement? No, that’s why they got her up.   No one is suggesting that these cops get a commendation for their actions or that it could not have been handled better, but calling them idiots and saying they should be fired is not reasonable either. This woman, like all citizens that feel they have been wronged by the cops; has recourse. She can make a formal complaint and she has civil court available to her. I’m guessing it doesn’t go that far.

Posting my response to this incredible d****baggery would likely result in warning points and being on an NSA list.  Since I'm likely already on an NSA list (or two); I'll censor myself for the sake of my warning points. 

2 words: ninja stars

Teufelshunden is more accurate, actually:)   Bis später , ya`all :)

Teufel Hunden.   Some will know.

I'm not exaggerating anything.  If you think you can look at a person and judge whether they have a spinal injury based on your perceived severity of the accident then you are fooling yourself at the victim's expense; anyone who has worked more than a few accident scenes knows just how foolish that is.  As to the degree of force they used ANY force was irresponsible and excessive because it was 100% unnecessary and 100% against even the most basic first aid.   I don't know why you want to dismiss the actions of these cops but their actions were absolutely wrong...absolutely irresponsible...absolutely stupid and there's not a chance in hell you are going to change my mind on this.

  So cops should now just politely monitor people acting irrationally until a medic comes around and not take into consideration anyone's safety?  The woman had already displayed multiple reasons for being considered dangerous.   maybe instead of securing her on the ground they could've just held her at gun point and not moved her... but then we would be talking about how those evil cops pointed a loaded gun at her instead.  bunch of silliness in this argument, I bet once the full video is released this story will die out just like the rest of them do.

  Beginner's first aid doesn't teach you how to tell the difference between someone driving after snorting bath salts or having blood sugar problems.   I am the first to say that cops should be charged with crimes just like any of us, but just as bigk said there is a lot of shit going on there that we don't see; it's just another tape edited by the media to show their message agenda. Anyone who has been in those crappy situations can tell you that it is impossible to process all of the data, impossible no matter how awesome of an analyst they think they are.  It's easy for us to see the video and say officer 1 did this wrong, officer 2 did this wrong, because we don't have all of our senses being flooded with variables from the computer screen, we can easily focus on a few select items.   As you said in the previous post about dragging her out, what happened if the car caught fire and they left her in it?  what happened if she jerked something in gear and ran over a cop? it wouldn't take more than a couple of feet to run over and kill someone... what if the driver had a gun under the seat? she had no idea what was going on so she could've very well got spooked and started shooting.  what if she started squirming around inside the car and cut herself up from shards of metal or glass and started bleeding out?   We can play the what-ifs from a computer screen all day long, that's why i stopped trying to make judgements based on videos that are obviously designed to drum up an emotion of some sort until the underlying story is out.  Perfect example is that idiot in murfreesboro that went through the dui checkpoint, people were screaming how it was terrible until they found out it was planned and he was a student pursuing a degree in media then the whole damn thing just disappeared.

Lingo-wise, "quota" is verboten in LE circles.  "Stats driven" or "Standards" is in.  Metro Nashville and other agencies are 'ate up' with it.   Personally, I think it's just a crutch for lazy LE supervisors. Numbers don't tell the whole story.  I know what my people are doing...regardless of what a Stat Sheet says.   For instance, two different 3rd Shift officers...   #1 stays on the main roads and writes 5 tickets during his shift.  Yay. #2 listened in rollcall, heard about a neighborhood getting crushed with vandalisms and car burglaries, and makes it his mission that night (in between the calls-for-service he has to answer). At the end of the shift, he didn't catch anyone (white car with blue lights and POLICE all over it), but there were ZERO vandalisms and car burglaries that night.  Because of this, #2 didn't write any tickets.   Is #1 officer better than #2 officer?  "Stats Driven" says he is. I say no.

Very predictable. I went in there about 2 months ago. 2 guys engrossed in an online sale. Never bothered to ask if they could help me, or find out what I was interested in. Too many options for me to waste any more time there.

If one owns a Ruger 22/45 (or any other Mark) and has shot it so much it actually needs to be taken apart and cleaned it's probably time to go buy a new one.

I wonder how many people are getting their names added to "the list" for hitting the detonate button?

I think Barry oughta come back to SW VA like he did on the first election. I'd really like to hear him explain his war on coal to my people.

Enjoy the wait. I am 4 months into my wait and when I called last week I had just went pending and was told it was going to be another 6-8 months before I could SBR mine.   As far as terminal performance most any ammo will be acceptible inside of 100 yards with a 11.5" barrel providing the twist isn't too fast. Personally I would go extreme. That is I would use either a really heavy bullet or a really light bullet but nothing in between. I would also use modern designs that are designed to fragment even if they do not tumble. With a 9 twist I would also plan on shooting heavy bullets because they loose less velocity from the short barrel than lighter bullets. a 9 twist will shoot 77 grain bullets out to 100 yards easily and they WILL tumble when they hit.   Twist has a significant affect on terminal perfomance when using FMJ's or target style rounds. Fragmentation with FMJ is secondary to tumbling. If a bullet does not yaw or tumble is generally does not fragment, at least not FMJ. And the 5.56 will tumble and fragment providing the velocity is high enough AND the twist is slow enough. I will have to go back and look but I believe it is generally accepted that FMJ bullets need at least 2,600 fps to fragment AFTER they begin tumbling. So if the velocity is below that threshold at the target then you will only get a tumbling bullet and that is only if the twist is slow enough that the bullet becomes unstable   If you have a short barrel with a fast twist it is the worst possible combination for self defense. The twist will not allow the bullet to tumble and the velocity will not cause the bullet to fragment even if it does tumble. In those cases I would choose the heaviest bullet I could find in hopes it will be unstable and tumble. Or use modern bullet designs like the Harnady TAP.   Most people are going to survive a clean 22 caliber hole so long as it doesn't hit vital blood supplies or CNS. The damage from a 5.56 comes frm when the bullet tumbles and/or fragments. And when a bullet is overstabilized it will not tumble and the if velocity is below the bullet's fragmenting threshold it will just pass through just like a 22lr. I have seen it first hand. Had a guy we brought in that had been hit in the upper left thigh. He was walking and talking with very little blood. http://www.texassmallarmsresearch.com/TechInfo/556Performance/556Performance.pdf Note page 4 that M855 bullets do not reliably fragment at velocities below 2,500 fps in a 7 twist barrel. And considering out of a M4 (14.5" barrel) the M855 is at 2,900 fps but at 200 yards it is only going 2,400 fps, well below the fragmenting threshold for that round. This means at roughly 150 yards the m855 fired out of a M4 will no longer reliably fragment. Or out of a 16" carbine that range is extended to roughly 200 yards but not much more. All of this is because of the twist rates. The tumbling is what starts the fragmenting process with FMJ.   M855 runs about 2,500 fps out of a 11.5" barrel which means fragmentation is pretty much out of the equation. So you have to rely on the bullet tumbling for all of its damage.   The reason we hear of all the problems overseas right now is because the military decided to try to turn what is a short range cartridge into a long range cartridge. The 223/5.56 is a 300 yard cartridge under ideal conditions. When they decided to go with a faster twist it over stabilized the bullets and reduced the chances of them tumbling. Them they shortened the barrel which reduced the velocity and reduces the range at which the bullets will fragment if they tumble. And finally they went to a heavier bullet which reduced the velocity even more.   Why is it we hear the Army complain and not much from the Marines? It is because the Marines chose to keep the 20" barrel. This increased the velocity which in tirn increases the chance of fragmentation over the 14.5" barrel.   If I were to build a dedicated SBR with termianl performance in mind it would have a 10.5"-12.5" barrel but most importantly it would have a 12 twist barrel and not a 7, 8 or 9. 12 twist was the original design and it worked extremely well because a 55 grain bullet is barely stable which ensures the bullet will at least tumble. It will also shoot 62 grain bullets inside of its useable range of 100 yards. And when the 62 grain bullet hit a "soft" target it would tumble. And even if you shot 77 grain bullets and they tumbled in the air they would still be deadly.   My SHTF AR has a 12 twist 20" barrel. It is extremely accurate with everything up to, and including, 62 grain bullets.

wow, im glad you shared that, i thought ho chi min or holi  chit mon was one of the pilots from the asiana crash who learned to fly at founding father aviation school, i feel so much better...

  So the officers observed a firearm in her possession?  Or they should just assume than anyone involved in an automobile accident is an armed thug looking to 'take out' a cop?

Obama hat keine Donaudampfschifffahrtsgesellschaftskapitaensmuetze. 

  Yep, that's what the man said. TCA 39-17-1352 requires that the HCP be suspended or revoked for a conviction of 39-17-1351 through 39-17-1360, which of course includes 39-17-1359, the statute on posting.   If I recall correctly, the wording in 39-17-1359 replaced an old statute that was more vague in its posting requirements. 39-17-1359 says the posting has to be plainly visible, located at every entrance used by the public, and must contain either the circle & slash "gunbuster", or language substantially similar to a phrase provided in 1359 that specifically cites TCA 39-17-1359. In other words, "no guns allowed" doesn't meet the content requirement of 39-17-1359.   When OS says that there's nothing that says you can't get popped for a 1359 violation even with an improper sign, it's because 1359 leaves out a clause that is found in the federal code. In 18 USC 930 it says at the end in section (h)       It's sort of a mixed bag. The USC doesn't have specific language requirements, but does say that if what posting requirements it does list aren't met, then no conviction. TCA has very specific requirements, but doesn't have the get out of jail free card. Without case law, we really don't know how a 39-17-1359 violation might go down if the sign in question didn't meet the content requirements, or what exactly "plainly visible" means.   A simple reading of the law would say that a normal person going about their normal behavior would see the sign and that it would be a gunbuster OR have the legalese language which also cites TCA 39-17-1359. i would expect a defense lawyer to use the fact that 39-17-1359 replaced the earlier vagueness to show that the legislature did very much intend to standardize how a public facility may properly post and that they should have to comply with the content and location requirements of the law. I would equally expect that a prosecutor would use the fact that "no guns allowed" is pretty dang self explanatory. Until we have an actual case, we won't know which side has the better lawyer.

  is this that Head Start program I keep hearing about on the news ?

  As I understand it (again, I'm not a lawyer), an exception does mean not illegal. For example, -1309[e] lists several exceptions to [b] and [c]. As I read it, it is not illegal for police officers to possess a weapon with the intent to go armed on school property as long as it is in discharge of their official duties, and it is not illegal for me to possess an unloaded and legally stored firearm in my vehicle on school property (exception to [c]).   An affirmative defense means an act is still illegal and you can be arrested, charged, and tried, but you can use the affirmative defense to get the case dismissed or get a not guilty verdict. Whether you get that far or not depends on how clear and compelling your evidence is for your defense, along with possible political pressure on the prosecution. Also, with an affirmative defense the burden of proof is on the defendant. As an example, killing another human is illegal, but self defense can be argued as an affirmative defense. Zimmerman confessed to multiple crimes including discharging a weapon in city limits and homicide, but was able to use self defense as an affirmative defense to get a "not guilty" verdict.   Back to my specific case, I've done a lot of reading (helped immensely by your responses) since the time of my original post. If I have a loaded handgun in the car that is hidden from sight per -1313, then that is not illegal because -1313 says so. If my kid blabs to the wrong person and the police are waiting on me in the car line then they cannot arrest me as long as the weapon is hidden. On the other hand, if I'm stupid and leave a loaded handgun in full view on the passenger seat then -1313 does not apply and I am in direct violation of -1309[b]. If a teacher spots it and calls the police I can be arrested and tried, but I can use -1310 as an affirmative defense. I realize that in TN I would never get to trial because any decent lawyer would get the case dismissed, but many teachers are VERY anti-gun, and most people don't know about the allowances in -1309 and -1310. Many people, including many police officers, think ANY gun on school property should result in an immediate arrest. Therefore I will make d@mn sure my weapon is always out of sight.

The Chicagoland Gestapo are hard at work I see...yet another reason why I NEVER set foot in Illinois...if my unalienable right to keep and bear arms is not respected and protected then I know that my money is unwelcome. It's a shame too...I lived in North Chicago for a couple of years and for years after I moved I continued to visit Chicago's museums and theaters and restaurants (not to mention start my recurring trips down Route 66). I hope that the good people of Illinois (and I know there are many) will take their state back and restore sanity. Until then, I have been and will continue to drive AROUND Illinois to get to places and avoid spending a penny in the communist state of Illinois.

Violent by who's standards?   Had she suffered any spinal/neck injuries as a result of the accident then what they did was far more than sufficiently violent to cause massive additional trauma to her spine or even cause significant damage when there had been none up to that point...she did not need to be and should not have been moved from her vehicle but if there had been imminent danger/they truly had to move her then there is a proper way to move a potentially injured person to limit risk of additional injury; these officers are either too stupid to know that or didn't care. Not moving a potentially injured person is as basic to first aid as "a gun is always loaded" is to basic firearm safety. They had other options to get control of her and secure the vehicle - they chose not to use them - they deserve to be disciplined.

  Silly man, the electric comes from telephone poles and transformers not from coal.  It's the cleanest form of energy around

This is so predictable. Once our 'tarded friends are boxed in by laws, they'll play the mental health card as much as they can.

You don't know what school your kids go to?!?!

  And without question I bet you are 100% correct from a medical standpoint and your experience demands respect.  But, these guys are not medical professionals, they are supposed ot be law enforcement professionals which require approaching situations from different thought processes and directions, with a different intent.   Their duties and responsibilities are completely different than yours if you showed up on scene.

Besides the tactical issues, don't forget that if you are involved in an SD shoot, no matter how clean you think it is, you could face charges if the DA thinks otherwise, even if it's in your own home. Consider how the weapon used by you will play before a jury of non-gun-lovin' people.   Whatever you decide, create a plan and practice it.

Are you really going to tell me it's "standard procedure" to violently pull someone out of vehicle that's just been in an accident? Because if you are then is PISS POOR PROCEDURE and it needs to change because it's idiotic.   What is so damn hard to understand that you don't move a potentially injured person and you sure as hell don't violently pull them out of a vehicle when they've just been in a wreck regardless of whether they are drunk going into diabetic shock or anything else. There was ZERO reason to violently pull that woman out of her car except for stupid, irresponsible cops being stupid and irresponsible.

I have always been a fan of the 870 until i moved. I now have to navigate stairs and my strategy has changed with the addition of our daughter. I went to a Glock 21 with Tru Glo night sights and a TLR-1. 13 rounds of  .45 ACP (Speer gold dot 230 gr.). I find it easier to clear the stairs and some other awkward angles in the new home.

I'm not talking about differentiating between a medical condition and being high on bath salts of anything else...it doesn't matter whether she was drunk or going into diabetic shock nor did they need to make a determination before moving her because it was irresponsible to move her; much less drag her out of her vehicle.   I'm talking about basic first aid...I'm talking about qnce you are past the basic A-B-C of first aid the most basic rule is to NEVER move an injured person and most especially so when there can be spinal/neck injuries (and you ALWAYS must be concerned with spinal injuries in a car accident) unless they are in immediate danger - anyone who has ever taken any basic first aid class should know that and most certainty a first responder should damn well know that.   There is no reason to play "what if'...the car wasn't on fire...they did not have to drag her out (pretty violently at that) from her vehicle just to turn it off...they did not have to drag her out to secure her until medical arrived...they did not have to drag her out and they most certainly didn't have to put her face down on the pavement in handcuffs.   If folks want to think these cops acted responsibly that's fine, I don't agree and never will.

See, THIS is why I suggested not overreacting until you had all the facts. The woman was so disoriented that she tried multiple times to drive off, meaning she was unresponsive, not unconscious. She was moving around in the vehicle, which most likely made the cops thing she wasn't injured. Thinking she was drunk and had already struck a stopped vehicle, the officer decided to gett her out of the car and subdued before she could hurt someone or herself. I get that she was disoriented due to her medical condition, but it sounds JUST like something a drunk driver would do. Later in the article it states that as soon as they found out she was diabetic they called an ambulance for her. I think mistaking her actions for that of a drunk is more than understandable.

For me a handgun with a weapon mounted light is best for my situation. I also have a Mossberg 590 but it too has a mounted light. try each option you mentioned above both during the daylight hours then do a run through in the dark. my home defense plan includes the following, Glock 23 with streamlight tlr2,cell phone and a practiced plan. let us know what you decide on.

  Barrel is too heavy on an American gun for his English wrist!   :rofl:

I'm sorry but I simply can't agree.   It looks bad on TV because IT IS BAD.   Just because they got lucky that they didn't hurt her more is not sufficient to avoid punishment (and I can almost guarantee you that that if they've acted this stupidly and recklessly this time they've done it before and will do it again because stupidity and irresponsibility don't just magically appear once and then disappear).   There are certain basic knowledge a first responded should know and I'm absolutely sure they've been taught and one of those basic pieces of knowledge is that you simply do not move an accident victim unless it's necessary to remove them from greater danger...this concept is so basic that I'd bet most grade school kids know it.  I'm not suggesting that these cops should have their lives ruined but I'd suggest at least a month or two of leave without pay...something that will dip into their personal pocket book to get their attention and if the city is in any way training their officers to act this way then the city needs a damn good lesson too.   Citizens aren't criminals and they need to be treated with dignity and respect; especially when they've just suffered an auto accident...the courts can take care of punishment for a driver later if it's warranted; responding officers should treat them as victims (because that's what they are); not criminals and what they did to this woman, aside from the risk of injury, was to treat her as a thug/criminal. She didn't deserve that treatment; they deserve to pay for their irresponsibility.

    ORSA is the place for high power. 

I get the whole "if you hear hooves don't assume zebras" thing, but still, had she been drunk would laying her on the pavement be appropriate even then? Whether she had committed a crime or not the officers still have an obligation not to cause injury or exacerbate an injury unless it is necessary to subdue a suspect. Didn't look like she needed to be subdued. I guess I just don't understand that mentality. If I had to guess, her treatment was punitive for not opening the door when they commanded, but that shouldn't matter, should it? It's a good case for departments to train their officers on. I don't know if I would consider any of this to be negligent to the point of being criminal, but what I do know is that if that had been my wife I'd be coming for the ass or badge of every one of those cops on scene.

Just like with stories of gun owners; it’s the media grandstanding. She plowed into an innocent freaking guy sitting at a light. She could have killed him.   First thing you do at an accident scene is make it safe for the victims and the people in the area. Even before treating anyone you turn the vehicles ignitions off to keep from having a fire and make sure no drunks or injured people are still in control of a vehicle. . It took them a minute to figure out what was going on.

Some family fun. You get desensitized to the idea of every city in America having an armed military style assault team ready to kick in your door, shoot your dogs, and hold your family at gun point over nothing. Also, unless things have changed, these NNO events are paid for through federal grant dollars.

  Not enough.

No one ever says: "That guy was way too prepared."

I'm sorry but I'm going to have to disagree with this statement.  As someone who has taught countless people to ride I can attest that it is much easier to learn motorcycle fundamentals on a bike that is light weight and doesn't have mountains of power.  I know that you ride a Goldwing, which I think is a fine ride but I would never tell someone that a Goldwing makes a great first bike.  If I'm teaching someone that has zero motorcycle experience I start them out on a CRF88 which has an automatic clutch, I then move them to one that has a manual clutch and then onto a KLX250.  For a first bike I recommend something that doesn't have body work, as it is expensive to replace when damaged, and you ARE going to drop that first bike, something that doesn't have a crazy amount of power and something that is light weight.  I had a 2006 GSXR1000 it was a very fun bike but there is no way that I would tell a person that they should get it as a first bike because that is the bike they want, with 180+HP weighing in at 440 pounds, that's just a death trap in the wrong hands.  By the way, I'm always willing to work with and teach anyone who wants to ride free of charge, I'll even provide the bikes.