btq96r

  Lol, because George is the trustworthy one in any situation he's involved in.   How this guy can still get a date is incredulous to me.

  In your extreme example, yes, I do.  They shouldn't do it to begin with, but no government agency should restrict free speech.       Here is the law concerning obstructing police, or 'Obstruction of Justice' in formal terms.  Since no force was used against the officers, who still thinks those guys deserved a ride to the station for exercising their 1st Amendment rights?   Title 39  Criminal Offenses   Chapter 16  Offenses Against Administration of Government   Part 6  Obstruction of Justice Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-16-602  (2014) 39-16-602.  Resisting stop, frisk, halt, arrest or search -- Prevention or obstruction of service of legal writ or process.   (a) It is an offense for a person to intentionally prevent or obstruct anyone known to the person to be a law enforcement officer, or anyone acting in a law enforcement officer's presence and at the officer's direction, from effecting a stop, frisk, halt, arrest or search of any person, including the defendant, by using force against the law enforcement officer or another. ( b ) Except as provided in § 39-11-611, it is no defense to prosecution under this section that the stop, frisk, halt, arrest or search was unlawful. (c ) It is an offense for a person to intentionally prevent or obstruct an officer of the state or any other person known to be a civil process server in serving, or attempting to serve or execute, any legal writ or process. (d) A violation of this section is a Class B misdemeanor unless the defendant uses a deadly weapon to resist the stop, frisk, halt, arrest, search or process server, in which event the violation is a Class A misdemeanor. HISTORY: Acts 1989, ch. 591, § 1; 1991, ch. 307, § 1; 1999, ch. 178, § 1.

  My reasons exactly.  I want these rights for everybody, not just those in society I disagree with.  Reminds me of the old quote "I do not agree with what you have to say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it."       Something to keep in mind with this scenario is "Knowing Your Operational Environment."  It's an overused phrase in the military and an underused one in law enforcement, IMO.  It's in those two cops interest to keep things calm on their side.  If those onlookers are provoked into violence, the two cops are potentially screwed.  They can't be sure they could shoot all the potential attackers (not sure exactly how many there were) before they would be overpowered and possibly worse.  It's in the LEO's interest to keep a situation under control with a minimum of force on their side, and their restraint was as much for that reason as anything else.    The female officer didn't go above an beyond anything, she did her job, and did it well.  The crowd was being watched and handled while her partner dealt with the suspect.  They left the scene with their suspect under cuff in the back of their cruiser without a further incident because they handled it correctly.   If the onlookers went from making verbal threats to engaging the LEO's, the situation is completely different, but this situation didn't get to that.       Instigation isn't interference, and threats require action for a physical response, IMO.  Everything isn't hunkydory as you put it, but the onlookers aren't doing anything that necessitates the use force or arresting them.  They never got between the officers and the suspect nor laid a hand on the officers, or even made an overly aggressive move.  The female officer kept them at a distance between them and her partner.  As I said above, job well done by her.

The only thing I've ever been rated for was my hypertension, at 0%, and quite honestly, it's easier to see a doctor and get my RX filled out of pocket on the open market than through the VA.  Having to rely on them for something complicated would scare me.

  The female officer was backing up her partner, by keeping watch on the group.  I think it's reasonable to expect for a crowd to gather when someone gets arrested, and the officer not making the arrest should be keeping some measure of security.  She did a good job, and so did the officer who was handling the suspect.  Like I said, they got close, but never physically interfered.  Is there any standard of how far away an LEO can control a crowd in a situation like that?  I'd imagine it varies by jurisdiction if such law even exists, which is confusing enough.   Egging on someone to resist isn't a crime, and shouldn't be.  It's was on him to take their advise, he seemed to, which opens a tack on charge because of it.  It's a free speech issue and I want to keep away from government legislation.

  It may drop from 4G to 3G, but yeah, I'd assume so.        Where did they actually interfere?  Was it enough to stick in court, or would a judge most likely throw it out as a nuisance arrest?  The LEO's were going to keep an eye out anyway, good SA demands no less.  The got close sure, but didn't cross the line as they never physically tried to stop the officers from making the arrest.  The only one who interfered with the arrest was the guy who was arrested with his bit of resistance to being put in the car, so the DA can tack that on if he wants.       Facebook comments are the apex of how stupid we truly are.  People hiding behind a keyboard or mobile phone who say things with a lot of bravado, and others get drawn down into the argument at that lowest of levels.  If there is life beyond our planet and they survey us while deciding to make first contact, I'd imagine they would monitor the internet and based on Facebook commenting alone, decide we aren't advanced enough for their attention.

I didn't see a thing wrong in that video from either the officers or the onlookers.  I wouldn't agree with the demeanor or the language used by the crowd, but they have the right to be there, and say what they want to say.  If their actions stepped over the line, there would be a need for consequences, but they didn't.    I get that LEO's have to deal near exclusively with assclowns, but if they didn't know that going in, or can't handle it after doing the job for too long, they are free to quit.  We pay them- that's right we pay them through our taxes- to behave professionally at all times.  The officers in the video didn't demonstrate restraint to me, they did their jobs.  As it should be every time.   Also, the onlookers have the right to film the police officers.  I have a live video streaming app on my phone for that purpose as well that uploads a video as it records, so I can access it later if my mobile happens to have an accident.  You can be damn sure it gets turned on every time I encounter an LEO.  It's for my personal protection, because quite frankly, I feel the need for that insurance, not because I'm for hoping to catch a cop doing the wrong thing.  Thank all the officers who do the wrong thing for destroying my trust in the system.

  Those Nikon mounts I mention earlier in the thread are working fine after learning the complex trick of reversing them. :dropjaw:   They aren't QD, though.  Not sure if that was something you wanted to have.

  Thanks for the info.  Just added those to my cart on Amazon.  Bushnell should just get rid of that ugly cover they ship it with and add those.

I see by the booking photo he's dropped the weight his lawyer had him put on to look like an easy victim during the Trayvon trial. 

As I said in the other thread...   Isn't the point of stacking guys at the entry point for them to actually go in?  Firing from the breech point isn't very tactically sound, IMO.  Movement is your friend.   Plus, that's way too many dudes to take down one guy.  I could have sent a five man fire team from the 101st in there and gotten the same results.  Sooner or later the bad guys are going to take a head count of resources deployed to handle one or two guys and plan follow on attacks based on everybody being somewhere else to handle what will be later determined to be a diversionary attack.   I'm glad the bad guy is dead, but there should be a lot to AAR from this.       Ricochets seemed to also be a big danger in that soup sandwich.

  I wish I had done what David suggests.  Reference my disappointment here.

  I'm with you there.  Being out of class for the last month with the gym on campus being closed has made me lazy.  Normally I walk the mile from my house to class and back, plus try to hit the gym when I can and mix in some biking on the weekend for variety.  But with the cold weather, and the holiday schedule, very little has actually gotten done.  Hoping to ramp it back up when the gym opens up again on Monday.     As to the original topic, rifle, I consider myself UC in the functions department, but not on marksmanship- especially on the move.  Time, cost of ammo, ranges not generally liking such things factors in.  The most I can walk & shoot is the assault rifle pit at OK Corral.  For pistol, I'll go with CC overall, but I think with more practice I can get up to UC easily enough.  Again, time and money being the biggest constraints.    Overall though, I'm confident in home defense and while carrying out and about.  That's 90% of the requirement, IMO.

Today it's an Airsoft show in Japan, but the next step in this sequence of events is him doing his moves for bachelorette parties at a male strip club.

  I've never been into the velco on a hat and too many soldiers and contractors just wore out the look for me while I was living OCONUS.  Call me old fashioned, but I'm a fan of low vis and velco on civilian kit isn't very practical for that.   But a black or khaki cap with the logo from the top left of the website on the front and the bullet logo on the back would be badass, IMO. 

I thought this was the limit of how far his cult of personality would go...I forgot Japan is the X factor in all things. I'd sell my truck for a hot turkey sandwich before I resort to...whatever that was.

I'm in unless my girlfriend has an opening in her schedule.  Since she is a night shift ER nurse and has kids, I'm at best, #3 in her scheduling priorities and I give her first dibs when I have no firm commitment.

  It isn't even limited to their Special Operations units.  When the French committed a combat brigade to Afghanistan in 2009 the only "national caveat" they had was to be given their own battle-space like a US Brigade has to manage.  There was none of the 'can't fight at night' 'won't participate in offensive operations' restrictions more than a few members of ISAF had.

I'm in for a morale patch, whatever size you feel is best.   Any hope for getting TGO ball caps or polo shirts someday?

  Quick point...the 1st Amendment doesn't apply one bit internally on TGO.  It only applies to government repression of free speech in our country.    You pointed out that in the other thread that TGO has a code of conduct in the other pitbull thread.  If Ron is abusing anything, it's that code of conduct, not the 1st Amendment.  The Admin team and Moderators make that call and they will step in should they think Ron is out of line. If you feel the need to get their attention on this so they can adjudicate that sooner rather than later, use the Report button on the thread that you feel is over the line.

I'll reserve final judgement until I see some backwoods militia III%'er make a YouTube video about there usefulness.  Then and only then will I know how useless this product is.

  I worked with a guy in Afghanistan who was based in Alaska when back home.  He said their meth situation was getting bad.  But like most things in that state, it tended to fly under the radar on the national level because of their distance and low population.

I'm probably the odd one out in that I don't keep my firearms loaded in the strict sense.  I do keep a mag in the well, or shells in the tube, on all my weapons.  It takes me but a second to get a gun ready, so unless I wake up with the bad guy right on top of me, I'm still ready to go in sufficient time.  I do this so there is no confusion of "is it loaded" when I'm still waking up, even under adrenaline fueled conditions.  I'll make sure it's loaded by doing it myself then and there.  This works for me, but I'm not about to prescribe it as the method anybody else should use.   As to the racking of a shotgun being a deterrent...in my opinion, it can't hurt things.  Home invaders are mostly looking for things to steal and want to be in and out with whatever they can carry.  They are the types who thrive on easy targets, and hearing a shotgun racked will let them know there isn't an easy target to be had in this house.  I wouldn't rely on it being enough to make them fly away, but I also won't underestimate the advantage that changing an invaders mental condition brings.

I don't care how many people come to the defense of pit bulls.  Every instinct I have tells me they are dangerous animals and I want nothing to do with them.  I'm sure some of you who own pit bulls are wonderful owners, but there is always the potential for things to go bad, and I'm not about to lower my guard because a few people on the internet tell me they're good to go if you just train them right.  There is a lot of documented risk with a pit bull and not enough mitigation available to contain it in my eyes.   I won't go so far as to say that people shouldn't have them, but I can understand why come communities would want to designate them a dangerous animal.  I would also be on edge if any of my neighbors had one, especially since there aren't an abundance of fences around properties where I live and anybody can make an honest mistake that would result in them being loose.

  This is the truth here.  The cable companies want you to think you need their massive download speeds to stream.  On multiple devices, perhaps, depending on what you are doing, but for one or two devices anything from 10-25 Mbps is plenty to cover your needs.       Sounds like you need to go into the settings of your router and limit the bandwidth to some of those devices.  You might have to manually assign IP's for devices and separate them into different IP and bandwidth ranges, but it's not too hard.       This plan is for small households (single mom with 1-2 kids), and unmarried people living alone.  The kind of people who may have already cut the cord and are living off of OTA and Netflix.  They figure at $20 a pop, it's not too much for most consumers, where service somewhere around $75-$100 is out of reach to bring them back into the fold.    For houses like yours, this plan isn't the target demographic, but maybe in the future some plans will develop you can live with.