Reservoir Dog

  Calm down there old fella.  Nobody said they ever did.  I was merely throwing out the idea because Vontar said something about a colorized version of the movie.  Since colorizations are so blatantly obvious, I thew out the idea of a colorized TV print.  You are correct, it is absurd, hence my statement you quoted.  :-\

  I have known about "TV prints" for some time.  I will have to check out what IMDb says about it.  Although, I never understood why someone would go to all the trouble to colorize a B&W TV print, when the original (in the original color format) is out there.  Makes no sense to me, but then again, neither does colorization.  I think it destroys a perfectly good movie.

  Hmmmm.  I have seen this explanation before. LOL. :cool:

  Great movie!  However, The African Queen has always been a color movie.  What you probably saw was a B&W "TV print."  At that time, it was common to release B&W prints of color movies to be shown on television (since color TV was not around yet), or you saw a colorized version of a TV print.   Some of my favorite war movies: The Great Escape Guns of Navarone Where Eagles Dare Bridge on the River Kwai Paths of Glory Breaker Morant

The FFA is a complete joke.  It is nothing more than TN thumbing its nose at the Feds, but ultimately it means nothing as far as firearms purchases.  FFLs are governed by federal regulations, and no FFL in their right mind would jeopardize their business or possible prison time by selling under a law as stupid as the FFA.   On a side note, I just bought two of their lowers and they are top notch.  I grew up in Lexington, and it's cool to have a rifle with my hometown stamped on the side.  I will probably get a couple of their billet uppers when they are more readily available.

  It is always preferable to have backup when performing a felony stop.  However, sometimes different circumstances require different procedures.  Maybe something led the officer to make the stop right then.  Hard to say since there are many variables.  It probably started out as a "routine" (although I hate using that word) traffic stop, and turned into a felony stop when the guy turned out to have some felony warrant for his arrest.

Probably a felony traffic stop.  Sounds like the suspect was wanted for a felony crime.  Those stops are usually done with guns out.

  They can?  Please cite some examples of this.  I would love to read up on them.     I agree with you here.  Criminal charges never should have been brought against Zimmerman because the case was extremely weak.  That is the reason the state prosecutor never sent the case to a grand jury, as she knew that they would have never returned an indictment.  Federal courts get their jurors from the same pool as the state courts, so unless there is new evidence, I think the outcome would be the same.  Nothing from the current USDOJ leadership surprises me, so they may charge him, but I still think that is unlikely.      

  I am no lawyer, but I am not sure the federal courts would have any jurisdiction for civil lawsuit in this matter.  Maybe if the disputants were residents of different states, or there was some connection to the US Govt, I could see it.  This incident occurred between two private individuals solely within the state of Florida, so I am not sure there is any jurisdiction for the federal civil courts.   Now, if you are talking prosecution for civil rights violations (which would be a criminal charge), then that is a different story.  I am sure the FBI is investigating this case, as well.  However, unless they come up with some earth-shattering evidence that was missed by the state prosecutors over the past year, then I think federal prosecution is unlikely.

It was the right verdict.   Hopefully everybody will stay calm.

  As previously stated, that photo is from a different event.  Obviously it was on some other Dept of Interior property.  If there is a large protest, it is not uncommon for Interior to bring in officers from its other agencies to assist.  National Parks in the the DC area are under the jurisdiction of the US Park Police, that is why you see them handling his stupid stunt in Freedom Plaza.

Kokesh is a complete idiot.  Play stupid games and win stupid prizes.

LWRC makes excellent rifles, you can't go wrong with one.  Upper/lower fit is usually very good, but I have seen some lately that are a little sloppy.  That doesn't really concern me, but some people like a nice tight fit.    The gas piston is a multi-piece design (which concerns me simply because I like as few parts as possible), but it is a proven design.  LWRC's gas piston is basically a copy of the old German Gewehr 43 gas system.  If parts availability is a concern, I would see if LWRC sells just the piston parts, so you can have some spares.  Spare parts a good idea whether you have a gas piston or a DI rifle.

  That's because you do have preconceived notions about all LEOs.  Prejudice sucks, doesn't it.

  Well, it is easy to "do" as well.  I have educated ATF personnel on the law before. They can't get you in trouble for not following some regulation that they made up in their head.  I have no fear of the ATF, like some in the gun business (and I am not talking of you).  But I have seen others who are petrified of the ATF, and will do anything they ask, even if there is no requirement for it.  I have always found them to be courteous and helpful when I need something. 

  ATF agents routinely give incorrect info.  What they "say" means nothing.  Go by what the law says.

  Where did you get that info?  According to the ATF, denials are kept for 5 years, and approvals for 20 years.     http://www.atf.gov/firearms/faq/brady-law.html#4473-nics-denied

  Yes.  Usually, they only want the actual paper form if they need it for evidence.  The vast majority of the time, the dealer will get a firearms trace request (either written or phone call).  The dealer will get the needed info off the form and provide that info to the ATF.

  Huh?  I assume you mean the NICS/TICS check info.  4473s have to be kept for 20 years. 

  I am not "sticking up" for the officers.  If you actually read my posts, you will see that I am very critical of their tactics in this case.  I am just merely pointing out that this in no way rises to 1983 violation and trying to educate people on it.  Nothing more.  You seem to have some preconceived notions about LEOs, and that is also a big part of the problem when it comes to whatever this "current climate" is.   Agree to disagree?  100% absolutely yes.

  I did not mean that as a derogatory term.  I meant it exactly in the definition of the word, as in "uneducated" or "lacking knowledge" on the subject.  I am not a lawyer, not do I play one on TGO.  I do have 15 years experience in law enforcement.  I have had 4th Amendment and color of law stuff drilled into my head during legal classes.   Your basis for calling this a 1983 violation is that their was no PC for the contact.  That is pure speculation on your part.  The news article says nothing about what reasonable suspicion or PC they had at the time of the incident.  However, let's say that there PC/reasonable suspicion for the contact was weak, and ultimately thrown out of court.  Does that constitute a 1983 violation?  Does that mean that the officers knowingly and willfully fabricated this incident to violate the ladies' civil rights?  I don't see that here.  Not even anywhere close.    Bad PC does not rise to the level of a 1983 violation.  I don't know how to be any clearer than that.

  You are correct that this could have been much worse if one of the ladies was a CCW holder.  That is why this agency needs to seriously review its tactics regarding operations like this.  But again, you spout off about this color of law stuff.  You seem quite ignorant on what constitutes a violation of civil rights under color of law.  I suggest you read up on it a bit.

  We know that....now.  But, the standard to apply is what did the officers know/suspect at the time of the incident.  It would be interesting to read their report to see why they thought the girls had purchased alcohol, but all we have is the news story, and it does not delve into the details of the officer's RAS/PC.  So, we are left in the dark on that.     Well, the ladies did not attempt to flee, they did flee from the officers.  The agents were well within the law to charge and arrest them.  However, this is where I feel the officers messed up a second time.  After determining why the girls fled, it would have been a good time for judicious use of "officer discretion."  If the agents felt that the girls should have been charged, they should have gotten all their info, written up the report and submitted it to the DA to see if charges were warranted.  For whatever reason, they felt that arrest was necessary.  We are left in the dark on that reason, as well.     Highly doubtful.  I don't see any criminal activity on the part of the ABC agents.  They suspected a crime was committed, they went to investigate the crime, they verbally identified themselves as LEOs, and the suspects fled from the officers.  The only problem here is that the tactics used to investigate the crime were seriously flawed, and that led the situation to get out of hand.  Flawed tactics do not rise to the level of criminal activity, and not even close to a 1983 violation.  Incompetence?  Perhaps.  But not criminal activity.  This agency seriously needs to look at the way they conduct plainclothes operations to try and make sure something like this (or even worse) never happens again.   Will a civil suit be filed? Probably.  I am sure there are lawyers out the salivating at the opportunity.  I don't know how successful it would be, but all the parties would probably settle out of court, anyway.

  With all due respect, this case does not even come close to a violation of civil rights under color of law.  To have a 1983 violation, these agents would have to had knowingly and willfully violated someone's rights.  That does not appear to be the case here.  These agents believed they had a crime, and they attempted to investigate that crime.  Nothing wrong there.  It was their tactics that were seriously flawed, and that led to this situation getting seriously out of hand.

  Well, here is a newsflash for you.........underage drinking is a crime ABC agents focus on in every state.  You are not going to see ABC agents investigating crimes like murder, rape, robbery, etc....  They are going to focus on alcohol related crime, that is their job.  Odds are that Harris Teeter store has a track record of selling alcohol to underage people, so the agents are merely focusing their efforts where the crime exists.  They are going after the buyers, but ultimately want to get the sellers.   That being said, and if the news story is accurate, the tactics they used are just plain dumb.  Swarming three young ladies in a store parking lot, at night, in plainclothes is just ridiculous.  At the very minimum, the agents who make the contact should be in some sort of uniform that makes them immediately recognizable a LEOs.  And here is another suggestion for these agents:  in the future, it might be prudent to have an agent in the store to verify that someone actually bought alcohol.....and not bottled water.  These guys were full of the stupid.  I can only hope that they will look at this, learn a lesson and change their tactics.