Apparently it’s illegal to scream at an overflowing toilet.
Dawn Herb, a woman in Scranton, Pennsylvania, was cited for disorderly conduct and could face up to 90 days in jail and a fine up to $300.
“It doesn’t make any sense. I was in my house. It’s not like I was outside or drunk,” said Ms. Herb. “The toilet was overflowing and leaking down into the kitchen and I was yelling (for my daughter) to get the mop.”
Bathroom Law. Overflowing? Lawsuit, baby.She admitted to using some profanity near an open bathroom window.
The big problem for Dawn is that her next door neighboor was a police officer. He asked her to keep it down, she didn’t, so he call the cops on her.
“You can’t prosecute somebody for swearing at a cop or a toilet,” said Mary Catherine Roper, an attorney with the American Civil Liberties Union in Philadelphia.
The thought now comes up: is this really against the law? Is getting pissed off at your toilet a crime? Is toilet-screaming now illegal?
The quick answer to this bathroom brawl? No.
This is the text of 18 Pa.C.S. § 5503(a), which is Pennsylvania’s prohibition on disorderly conduct:
A person is guilty of disorderly conduct if, with intent to cause public inconvenience, annoyance or alarm, or recklessly creating a risk thereof, he:
(1) engages in fighting or threatening, or in violent or tumultuous behavior; (2) makes unreasonable noise; (3) uses obscene language, or makes an obscene gesture; or (4) creates a hazardous or physically offensive condition by any act which serves no legitimate purpose of the actor.
Was Dawn engaging in fighting or threatening, or in violent or tumultuous behavior? Not unless you count toilet-warfare as violent, no. Was she making unreasonable noise? Let’s remember the statute says “with intent to cause public inconvenience, annoyance or alarm, or recklessly creating a risk thereof”. She definitely didn’t do that. Did she use obscene language? Well yes she did but, again, keep in mind she didn’t do it “with intent to cause public inconvenience, annoyance or alarm, or recklessly creating a risk thereof”. And we can pretty much throw out the “creates a hazardous or physically offensive condition by any act which serves no legitimate purpose of the actor.”
Our main point that we should take from this is not to let others dissuade you from having a good time under the guise of “disorderly conduct”. I can’t tell you the amount of times people have tried to use that excuse to prevent people from doing a fun, non-violent, legal activity that may produce some noise. Remember, disorderly conduct goes hand-in-hand with public unruliness which may lead to disorder and tumult. Just noise does not break the public peace! Yes it can piss off people that may want to go to sleep. Yes, 91 year old people who like their “peace and quiet” may throw their walker at you. But noise in-and-of itself does not cause the crime of disorderly conduct! It is not meant as a catch-all condition for any little thing that can disturb or annoy someone.
In this case, Dawn was in her home and her neighbor seems to be the only person that was disturbed by this. Her neighbor may have a right to be pissed off. He may have the right to not talk to her again. He may have the right to not bring fruitcake to her house in the Holidays. But disorderly conduct? You sir, are the one out of order.
Posted by Propertymanager on :
Yes, Dawn is guilty of "creating the risk of making too much noise and of using obscene language." I have this occur with regularity in my business and the troublemakers are charged and found guilty (as it should be). The real issue here is why anyone would tolerate or condone this RUDE behavior. Why does Dawn think that she is so special that she can disturb her neighbors in the quiet enjoyment of their property? If this is her first offense, she'll probably get a small fine and court costs. If she does it all the time, I'd send her to jail.
Posted by glassman on :
i doubt that the cops would have charged her if her neighbor wasn't a cop.
i bet the judge dumps the case. this is a severe misinterpretation of the intent of the law. the intentions are to be able to stop ongoing nuisances like parties that are too loud etc....
first ammendment:
“ Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. ”
now show me where the constitution provides for protection from rude behaviour? conservative? LOL... read the damn thing.
cuz? i would like to ban sub-woofers everywhere, i can feel them from a mile away.
Posted by Relentless. on :
LOL... Just cracks me up every time a self described conservative.. a smaller less intrusive government guy wastes no time in declaring normal behavior as disruptive and cause for governmental intervention. Dense would be an understatement worthy of Shakespeare's giggle.
Posted by glassman on :
people don't even know what "conservative" and "liberal" mean Relentless.
to me? it means do you beleive in a strict interpretation of the Constitution or a liberal interpetation of the constitution.
it means do you believe in borrowing and spending (liberal ) or paying as you go (conservative)...
sheesh, tax and spend is much MORE liberal than the "conservatives" in charge were behaving... which has been borrow alot and spend even more.
and when i pointed this out to 'em they blamed the terrorists...
when i told 'em the terrorists planned it this way? they laughed and said we'd kill 'em all in their caves... i'm still waiting on the autopsy...
the USSR died the same way we are in trouble right now...
the biggest difference is nobody loaned them as much money as we have been lent....
we'll see how that works out in the next four years.
Posted by Relentless. on :
Conservative is just a word. Liberal is just a word. The only word that has any meaning when describing politics in any form is the word Scumbag. That is what no one seems to get. The whole thing is a scam and none of them are our friends. If they were, it wouldn't cost billions to convince people they were right for the job.
Posted by glassman on :
IMO? nobody "right" for the job is dumb enough to want it.
make the pay proper, give the benefits across the top of the table? and you might attract some real talent.
Posted by Propertymanager on :
quote:Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
This is not a constitutional issue and certainly not an issue of free speech. This is only an issue of one rude loser disturbing her neighbors and infringing on their ability to enjoy their own property. We have these issues all the time in the rental business. One tenant is rude and insists on yelling, screaming, or playing their stereo too loud in the middle of the night. I encourage the tenant to politely ask the loud neighbor to turn it down the first time. Then the second time, I call the tenant and TELL THEM to turn it down (because they were too rude to do things right the first time). Finally, I have the tenant start calling the police and the noisy tenant is usually cited the first time and then arrested thereafter.
It shouldn't take a law for people to be considerate of their neighbors. However, some people are just rude and that's what these laws are for.
Posted by glassman on :
quote:Originally posted by Propertymanager:
quote:Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
This is not a constitutional issue and certainly not an issue of free speech. This is only an issue of one rude loser disturbing her neighbors and infringing on their ability to enjoy their own property. We have these issues all the time in the rental business. One tenant is rude and insists on yelling, screaming, or playing their stereo too loud in the middle of the night. I encourage the tenant to politely ask the loud neighbor to turn it down the first time. Then the second time, I call the tenant and TELL THEM to turn it down (because they were too rude to do things right the first time). Finally, I have the tenant start calling the police and the noisy tenant is usually cited the first time and then arrested thereafter.
It shouldn't take a law for people to be considerate of their neighbors. However, some people are just rude and that's what these laws are for.
this is why you'll never be a judge. thank God. you don't know anything about the case, and you insist on commenting wrongly without becoming informed.
the ACLU wouldn't get involved if the case was simply about disturbing the peace. it isn't.
fruthermore? i can tell a cop to eff imself from my own house because it is my right. it's not a public place.
the cop told her to shut the efup according to her as well...
Dawn Herb, whose potty mouth caught the attention of an off-duty police officer, was charged with disorderly conduct recently, prompting her to fire off a letter to the editor and vow to fight the charge.
“It doesn’t make any sense. I was in my house. It’s not like I was outside or drunk,” said Ms. Herb, who resides at 924 Luzerne St. along with her four young children. “A cop can charge you with disorderly conduct for disrespecting them?”
The obscenities hit the fan when she battled her overflowing toilet around 8 p.m. Thursday, she said.
Although Ms. Herb doesn’t recall exactly what she said, she admitted that she was frustrated and let more than a few choice words fly. Unfortunately, it was near an open bathroom window.
“The toilet was overflowing and leaking down into the kitchen and I was yelling (for my daughter) to get the mop,” she said. “A guy is yelling, ‘Shut the f--- up,’ and I yelled back, ‘Mind your own business.’ ”
Her next-door neighbor, Patrick Gilman, a city police officer who was off-duty at the time, apparently had enough of Ms. Herb’s foul mouth and asked her to keep it down, police said. When Ms. Herb didn’t stop, he called the police.
Patrolman Gerald Tallo responded and charged Ms. Herb with disorderly conduct.
The citation accuses the defendant of using obscene language or gestures “with intent to cause public inconvenience, annoyance or alarm or recklessly (creating) a risk ...”
as you can see? the cop is simply throwing his weight around...
i suspect he may end up with a real problem by the time the ACLU gets done with him...
funny? wasn't it you who told me to hire an ACLU attorney because i was illegally searched? LOL... sheesh...
Posted by glassman on :
quote:funny? wasn't ityou who told me to hire an ACLU attorney because i was illegally searched? LOL... sheesh...
No, it was me that told you to contact the ACLU IF you were illegally searched, which you admit you were not. You were stopped and were asked by the police if they could search. That is a LEGAL search. Nothing to contact the ACLU about.
Posted by glassman on :
quote:Originally posted by Propertymanager:
quote:funny? wasn't ityou who told me to hire an ACLU attorney because i was illegally searched? LOL... sheesh...
No, it was me that told you to contact the ACLU IF you were illegally searched, which you admit you were not. You were stopped and were asked by the police if they could search. That is a LEGAL search. Nothing to contact the ACLU about.
i never said that, you misremeber.
i was not asked. i did mention that being asked will only delay them getting one, and annoy them.
Posted by Relentless. on :
PM, I suggest you keep your job as slumlord and retire from government's defender. There is no way humanly possible for you to keep up.
Posted by glassman on :
PM? have you looked up oligarchy yet? Posted by Relentless. on :
Oligarchy Ol"i*gar"chy, n.; pl. Oligarchies. [Gr. ?; 'oli`gos few, little + 'a`rchein to rule, govern: cf. F. oligarchie.] A form of government in which the supreme power is placed in the hands of a few persons; also, those who form the ruling few. [1913 Webster]
All oligarchies, wherein a few men domineer, do what they list. --Burton. [1913 Webster]
Posted by glassman on :
of a few persons;
Bushs and Clintons ugh!
Posted by Relentless. on :
Would hate for him to stray and get lost.
Posted by glassman on :
here's another reason i never liked the Clintons and scoff at the notion that they are "liberals":
Clinton Crime Agenda Ignores Proven Methods for Reducing Crime
For Immediate Release: April 1, 2008 Contact: LaWanda Johnson (202) 558-7974 ext. 308 cell 202-320-1029
Clinton Crime Agenda Ignores Proven Methods for Reducing Crime Advocates say plan will increase incarceration rates and negatively impact the poor and minorities
Washington, D.C.--The Justice Policy Institute (JPI) announced today that Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton's anti-crime package ignores critical research that finds that investments in employment, education, housing and treatment for those who need it is the most effective and fiscally-responsible way to improve public safety. Research shows that Clinton's proposal to revive former President Clinton's COPS initiative, which called for investments in policing, would increase prison populations, and may have a negative impact on the nation's poor and minorities, without significantly reducing crime. The Clinton Administration's "tough on crime" policies resulted in the largest increases in federal and state prison inmates of any president in American history. Advocates say re-implementing this agenda would be a return to bad policies.
"The first COPS was found to be costly and ineffective in reducing crime rates and COPS 2.0 is not an improved version of the first one," says JPI executive director Sheila Bedi. "COPS was only successful in filling our prisons and jails with people who research shows can be better served with treatment, evidence-based practices, and community-based alternatives that also promote public safety."
According to research, adding police to the streets is not the most effective method for reducing crime. Delaware received $19.6 million in COPS grants and during that same time, the number of violent crimes increased 35.9 percent. In contrast, Oklahoma City, which did not receive any COPS grants, decreased its police force by 16 percent and during that same period saw a dramatic 32.5 percent decrease in the number of violent crimes reported. Furthermore, advocates say law enforcement professionals don't support policing as being the most effective method of reducing crime. In a 2002 poll, 71.1 percent of surveyed chief of police, sheriffs and prosecutors agreed that providing more educational and after-school programs would make the greatest impact in reducing youth crime and violence. Only 14.9 percent said that hiring more police would have the greatest impact.
"We've tried to win the war on gangs with law enforcement alone, but we have little to show for it," says National Black Police Association Executive Director Ronald Hampton. "Rather than engaging in endless battles, we need to target the problem behavior that hurts communities. We should support the kinds of prevention and proven programs that we already know reduce violence and crime."
Research supports investments in communities as a more cost effective and beneficial way of reducing crime. Research shows that when there is a reduction in crimes rates, it coincides with increased employment. When more people have jobs, fewer crimes are committed. A study by the Heritage Foundation found that "For every 1 percent increase in civilian labor force participation, violent crime is expected to decrease by 8.8 incidents per 100,000" people.
"Not only does the Clinton crime plan lack innovation and forward thinking, it ignores all we know about crime prevention. When people are employed, violent crime decreases," says Lisa Kung, Director of the Southern Center for Human Rights. "One in every one hundred Americans is incarcerated. It is clear that Clinton intends to continue a legacy of policies that will keep Americans paying for more police, more prisons and more punitive measures."
this part of the article i separated from the other post because this is what i was really looking for:
Advocates also believe that Clinton's opposition to the U.S. Sentencing Commission's decision to make retroactive the changes to sentencing for the thousands of people who had received disproportionately long sentences for crack-cocaine, most of whom are African American, is concerning. Nationwide, from 1995 to 2004, drug abuse violations were the only crime that saw an increase in arrests following the COPS grant. However, a report by JPI release last year, found that while African Americans and whites use and sell drugs at similar rates, African Americans are ten times more likely than whites to be imprisoned for drug offenses mainly due to disparate policing practices, disparate treatment before the courts, mandatory minimum drug sentencing laws, and differences in the availability of drug treatment for African Americans.
you almost never see the dope dealers in the frat houses get popped do you? Posted by Propertymanager on :
quote:African Americans are ten times more likely than whites to be imprisoned for drug offenses mainly due to disparate policing practices, disparate treatment before the courts, mandatory minimum drug sentencing laws, and differences in the availability of drug treatment for African Americans.
Why can't we just say what is totally obvious. The black male population has been decimated by the policies of the left. When you take away a person's incentive to work and enslave them in poverty, they turn to drugs. The young black male population is 10 times more likely to be imprisoned for drugs because so many of them are using/dealing drugs. Whose fault is that? The LEFT - who kept the black community down through their misguided social engineering complete with handouts instead of an expectation of performance!!!
There are MANY black males who have succeeded but for some reason (money) they are demonized by the black "leaders", who benefit monetarily from keeping blacks down!!! It's a national disgrace and all the fault of the socialists! We need to get back to higher expectations and personal responsibility.
Posted by glassman on :
When you take away a person's incentive to work and enslave them in poverty, they turn to drugs. The young black male population is 10 times more likely to be imprisoned for drugs because so many of them are using/dealing drugs
and you say you aren't a racist?
LOL... this is pure racism. drug dealing, drug use and abuse is statistically no higher or lower among the white or black population. even the white house shows less than a 1% statistical difference between whites and blacks. yet blacks are much more likely to be incarcerated for it.
Rates of current illicit drug use varied significantly among the major racial/ethnic groups in 2004. The rate was highest among persons reporting two or more races (13.3 percent) and American Indians or Alaska Natives (12.3 percent). Rates were 8.1 percent for whites, 7.2 percent for Hispanics, and 8.7 percent for blacks. Asians had the lowest rate at 3.1 percent.
even more interesting:
Education
* Illicit drug use rates in 2004 were correlated with educational status. Among adults aged 18 or older, the rate of current illicit drug use was lower among college graduates (5.6 percent) compared with those who did not graduate from high school (8.6 percent), high school graduates (7.8 percent), and those with some college (8.7 percent). However, adults who had completed 4 years of college were more likely to have tried illicit drugs in their lifetime when compared with adults who had not completed high school (51.8 vs. 37.2 percent).
Posted by Propertymanager on :
quote:drug dealing, drug use and abuse is statistically no higher or lower among the white or black population
Yeah, Glass, I believe that - just like I believe the government's inflation rate data and unemployment rate data (NOT). The truth is that any numbers put out by the government have to pass through their filters. In the case of inflation and unemployment, the data is manipulated to reflect the inflation and unemployment rates they desire. Their motive is to inspire confidence in the economy (which is pure stupidity). In the case of the drug data, the government passes their numbers through the screen of political correctness.
I don't believe the inflation numbers because I see prices rapidly going up at the grocery store, at the hardware store, and at the gas station. Inflation is not ridiculously low like the government is reporting.
I don't believe the unemployment numbers because I KNOW that the government doesn't count people that aren't looking for a job. There are tens of millions of people getting government handouts who aren't looking for a job. Unemployment rate at 5%??? Not hardly - more like 20%!
I don't believe that the same percentage of whites and blacks are dealing drugs because that's not even close to what I see in the real world. In my experience, a shamefully high percentage of young black males in low income areas are using/dealing illegal drugs. Hint: that's why they are arrested and sent to prison in such high numbers for these crimes. Is that related to the number of black males still in poverty - yes (the fault of the socialists and their government handouts). Like it or not, YOU ON THE LEFT are directly responsible for this sad fact - whether you want to admit it or not! And pretending that there isn't a huge drug problem among the young black male population is simply insanity.
You're right, this is a shameful racial issue - CAUSED BY AND CONTINUOUSLY ENCOURAGED BY YOU SOCIALISTS. Nothing is going to change as long as you lefties pretend that nothing's wrong!
Posted by glassman on :
In my experience, a shamefully high percentage of young black males in low income areas are using/dealing illegal drugs. Hint: that's why they are arrested and sent to prison in such high numbers for these crimes. Is that related to the number of black males still in poverty - yes (the fault of the socialists and their government handouts). Like it or not, YOU ON THE LEFT are directly responsible for this sad fact - whether you want to admit it or not! And pretending that there isn't a huge drug problem among the young black male population is simply insanity.
once again you seem to be unable to comprehend simple statements.
there is no statistical difference between drug use/abuse dealing between blacks and whites.
this is not some Govt filtered garbage. this is a fact. your experience does not matter. your experience is limited. your eyes are not open.
you'd be absolutely shocked at how many comparatively wealthy and even truly wealthy white people have asked me to make them smoking implements since i blow glass. i don't make them as a matter of principle, and it DOES cost me a lot of money not to. i offer this example as direct rebuttal to your excuses about taking govt vouchers because its just money, since you are so convinced i'm a leftist socialist and not a realist.
making pipes isn't illegal, and shouldn't be illegal since it has nothing to do with what people smoke out of them. just as a gun doesn't kill or maim anybody. only a person does that. yet i still refuse to make pipes because i know what they will be used for regardless of the semantics.
now i didn't say that the black population doesn't have any drug problem. i said it's statistically no different than the drug problem in the white community. YOU on the other hand are sying that blacks have a worse problem than whites, and that is just not true. blacks have a bigger problem with cops than whites do. enforcement is easier against the street dealers. much easier. but, i know for fact that drug use and abuse is basically no different between the whites and the blacks. the difference is how the laws are enforced and how the justice is dealt out. IMO? if you don't know this? you are one of the last people in the country to find out, and you should consider yourself informed as of now.
you don't see white kids on the streets selling "dime bags" or whatever inflation has them up to these days. that's the difference, they are doing the deals inside, and they are doing larger quantities.
i would be willing to wager you that if we do the research? we'll find that the largest amount of dope by weight, much more than 2 to 1 is confiscated from whites than blacks. yet blacks end up in jail and whites end up in rehab. or with no jail time, it's a fact....
Posted by bond006 on :
If this was a fair country and the law enforcement people would send an undercover unit with some inside agents into to my lily white upper middle class neighbor hood they would find a percentage of drug use that would stand right beside any black neighborhood or maybe even more.
And the police know this but it is hard to enforce the law with all the political power and money. Plus it does not look like a druggie place.
Posted by cottonjim on :
quote:Originally posted by Propertymanager: [QUOTE] Unemployment rate at 5%??? Not hardly - more like 20%!
20% ????? are you cracked, I am leaning towards believing that you are just pulling random numbers out of the air and spouting them off in support of your cause. Think about it, REALLY, if this country had a 20% unemployment rate this countries infrastructure and economic system would be in total chaos....... oh wait. Well besides that, 20% is still a tad to lofty of a figure for me to believe 20% as an average......come on.
Posted by glassman on :
And the police know this but it is hard to enforce the law with all the political power and money. Plus it does not look like a druggie place.
if a person were to actually study the history of the political development of the atmosphere that the drug control laws were developed in? they would discover that racial bias was the primary tool for creating a "demand" for drug laws. (not alcohol)
the M1911A1 .45 calibre semi-auto was "spec'ed" by the miltitary specifically for it's stopping power against "drugged up" Philipino warriors called "Moros". whether they were actually "drugged up" is debatable, but the military wanted to replace the .38 "special" revolver and they needed a reason to ask for mo-par... i suspect the rigors of jungle warfare had more to do with the military wanting the gun than bamboo armor and drug use.. (seriously they said bamboo armour was stopping 38 specials)...
note the model #1911? that indicates the date of development... it's the same time as the temperance movement.
in 1909? they tried to ban Coca Cola for it's high content of CAFFEINE...
Coca Cola was originally marketed as an alternative to aclohol and was heavily advertised in religious publications a temperance drink....
the M1911A1 military "specs" were then used to suggest that negroes on cocaine were also "unstoppable" and suddenly cocaine was "on the list" too...
Posted by Propertymanager on :
quote:Think about it, REALLY, if this country had a 20% unemployment rate this countries infrastructure and economic system would be in total chaos....... oh wait.
Exactly right! Chaos is just about the right word.
quote:Well besides that, 20% is still a tad to lofty of a figure for me to believe 20% as an average......come on.
Then, what figure do you believe? Do you believe that only 5% of those capable of working are out of work?
Posted by CashCowMoo on :
I think police have too much power. If I cop tells you to move or come to him and you dont they can arrest you for obstruction of "justice"
I remember when I was 18 I had a party inside my house..nobody outside. They came to the door and asked to come in and I said no...they told me that if i didnt let them in they were going to "rip through the screen door and drag my punk ass outside and come in anyway" I shut the main door and went back. Some dumb girl walked in after I left and let them in because she was scared of getting in trouble. They came inside and arrested me for obstruction of justice.
The case was dropped in court...but they were never given any speaking to for needless threats.
ive seen worse....they are power hungry. very few police out there want to truly do the right thing of enforcing the law without strong arming every citizen and assuming everyone is guilty.
Posted by Propertymanager on :
quote:very few police out there want to truly do the right thing of enforcing the law without strong arming every citizen and assuming everyone is guilty.
That's very odd. I come into contact with the police on a frequent basis. I have never been strong armed or accused of being guilty of anything! In addition, I don't know a single normal person who claims to have been strong armed. I do know of some criminals who have been strong armed and deservedly so!
Posted by glassman on :
I don't know a single normal person
i'd agree on that one i don't either. they have 2.3 kids and 3 marriages... Posted by T e x on :
quote:Originally posted by Propertymanager:
quote:very few police out there want to truly do the right thing of enforcing the law without strong arming every citizen and assuming everyone is guilty.
That's very odd. I come into contact with the police on a frequent basis. I have never been strong armed or accused of being guilty of anything! In addition, I don't know a single normal person who claims to have been strong armed. I do know of some criminals who have been strong armed and deservedly so!
You lead a sheltered life...
Keep staying in. First time it happens to you, you're liable to freak out biggly and get in real trouble.
Posted by Propertymanager on :
quote:You lead a sheltered life...
Quite the opposite. I'm out there in the hood everyday, in close proximity to druggies, drunks, and a wide variety of criminals (including many convicted felons). However, the difference is that I'm not a crack dealer; drunk; or criminal. Therefore, I have frequent contact with the police with absolute confidence that I will have no problems.
The police work for me! I'm a taxpayer and have every right to expect that the police act in a professional manner (which they almost always do).
Posted by glassman on :
The police work for me! I'm a taxpayer and have every right to expect that the police act in a professional manner (which they almost always do).
in your neighborhood? maybe. move outside that zone and you'll just be another civilian.
Posted by T e x on :
lol...
when it happens? you gonna bust like a china doll.
Posted by glassman on :
quote:Originally posted by T e x: lol...
when it happens? you gonna bust like a china doll.
pretty much shattered indeed, bed bugs uptown! what a mess, it's kind of odd actually, one minute he says he has nothing to do with any hoodlums and gangstas and all his tennants are totally kosher and then the next minute he's working in the hood with the tuffs all the time...
Posted by Propertymanager on :
quote:pretty much shattered indeed, bed bugs uptown! what a mess, it's kind of odd actually, one minute he says he has nothing to do with any hoodlums and gangstas and all his tennants are totally kosher and then the next minute he's working in the hood with the tuffs all the time...
Glass,
I thought you said your family had rentals. If that is true, you certainly should know better than that. As I've said before, I thoroughly screen my tenants. At any given time, 90% of my TENANTS are fine - no problems. Another 9% have some issues, but not to the extent that they need to be evicted. The remaining 1% get evicted (I've got an eviction tomorrow morning). So, the vast majority of my TENANTS are fine.
However, to find these good tenants, I have to go through a LOT of applicants. We eliminate about 95% of applicants for two reasons: criminal history and evictions. I just screened some scumbag a few minutes ago. He said his record was clean, but in reality had a very significant criminal record include violence. In addition, the "landlord" he listed was a girl whose name I recognized as a local loser who has multiple pages of criminal activity (a typical druggie). I come into contact with these criminals on a daily basis, not to mention the people who are hanging around in the low income areas where some of my low income rentals are located. So, YES, most of my tenants are fine. And Yes, I come into contact with drug dealers, drunks, and criminals on a daily basis. Both are true and completely normal in this business. This is NOT brain surgery, but yet you don't seem to be able to comprehend it. Concentrate - it's just not that difficult.
Posted by T e x on :
quote:Originally posted by Propertymanager:
quote:pretty much shattered indeed, bed bugs uptown! what a mess, it's kind of odd actually, one minute he says he has nothing to do with any hoodlums and gangstas and all his tennants are totally kosher and then the next minute he's working in the hood with the tuffs all the time...
Glass,
I thought you said your family had rentals. If that is true, you certainly should know better than that. As I've said before, I thoroughly screen my tenants. At any given time, 90% of my TENANTS are fine - no problems. Another 9% have some issues, but not to the extent that they need to be evicted. The remaining 1% get evicted (I've got an eviction tomorrow morning). So, the vast majority of my TENANTS are fine.
However, to find these good tenants, I have to go through a LOT of applicants. We eliminate about 95% of applicants for two reasons: criminal history and evictions. I just screened some scumbag a few minutes ago. He said his record was clean, but in reality had a very significant criminal record include violence. In addition, the "landlord" he listed was a girl whose name I recognized as a local loser who has multiple pages of criminal activity (a typical druggie). I come into contact with these criminals on a daily basis, not to mention the people who are hanging around in the low income areas where some of my low income rentals are located. So, YES, most of my tenants are fine. And Yes, I come into contact with drug dealers, drunks, and criminals on a daily basis. Both are true and completely normal in this business. This is NOT brain surgery, but yet you don't seem to be able to comprehend it. Concentrate - it's just not that difficult.
You been screened...
for credibility--and arrive...limping, at the finish line.
Posted by glassman on :
Glass,
I thought you said your family had rentals. If that is true, you certainly should know better than that
yes i do know better, as do most people with any experience in the biz.
you seem to have a different twist for us each day. it's cool, some days the job is better than others..
Posted by T e x on :
quote:pretty much shattered indeed, bed bugs uptown! what a mess, it's kind of odd actually, one minute he says he has nothing to do with any hoodlums and gangstas and all his tennants are totally kosher and then the next minute he's working in the hood with the tuffs all the time...
Glass,
I thought you said your family had rentals. If that is true, you certainly should know better than that. As I've said before, I thoroughly screen my tenants. At any given time, 90% of my TENANTS are fine - no problems. Another 9% have some issues, but not to the extent that they need to be evicted. The remaining 1% get evicted (I've got an eviction tomorrow morning). So, the vast majority of my TENANTS are fine.
However, to find these good tenants, I have to go through a LOT of applicants. We eliminate about 95% of applicants for two reasons: criminal history and evictions. I just screened some scumbag a few minutes ago. He said his record was clean, but in reality had a very significant criminal record include violence. In addition, the "landlord" he listed was a girl whose name I recognized as a local loser who has multiple pages of criminal activity (a typical druggie). I come into contact with these criminals on a daily basis, not to mention the people who are hanging around in the low income areas where some of my low income rentals are located. So, YES, most of my tenants are fine. And Yes, I come into contact with drug dealers, drunks, and criminals on a daily basis. Both are true and completely normal in this business. This is NOT brain surgery, but yet you don't seem to be able to comprehend it. Concentrate - it's just not that difficult.
Understood. Funny how present tense our lingering mood is. I do wish to note that those you term as "Criminals" would not be fifty or sixty years ago. Seems our categorizations of each other should be based on something a little more permanent than the momentary blip that is this government. Meaning we've been around for a hundred thousand years or so.. government.. at least this one? Not quite so long.
Posted by jordanreed on :
Archie states..
"I'm out there in the hood everyday"
wow!..get down brother!.. "the hood"...lol..
OKAY..lemma guess..first you pack sum heat, you walk out of your million dollar town home, hop in your yuppie mobile..stop off at Starbucks(double latte cappuccino , lite soy , decaf ) cruise down to the " hood", park your yuppiemobile, hop out and slap some skin with the brothers, drop-kick a loser in the face, knock a crack pipe outta a deadbeats hand, proceed on to your glorified sec 8, crackhouse/rental unit, evict a stoned,drunkin low-life, head back outside, say bye to your best buddies, and scurry off to your next mission from god...
and you didnt even mess a hair atop your lily-white head!
(blond in the crowd).. "Your amazing PROPMAN!!!"
what a hero!
what do you use for theme music?
Posted by Machiavelli on :
quote:Originally posted by Propertymanager:
quote:very few police out there want to truly do the right thing of enforcing the law without strong arming every citizen and assuming everyone is guilty.
That's very odd. I come into contact with the police on a frequent basis. I have never been strong armed or accused of being guilty of anything! In addition, I don't know a single normal person who claims to have been strong armed. I do know of some criminals who have been strong armed and deservedly so!
You forget something though.. your not normal. Posted by Machiavelli on :
quote:OKAY..lemma guess..first you pack sum heat, you walk out of your million dollar town home, hop in your yuppie mobile..stop off at Starbucks(double latte cappuccino , lite soy , decaf ) cruise down to the " hood", park your yuppiemobile, hop out and slap some skin with the brothers, drop-kick a loser in the face, knock a crack pipe outta a deadbeats hand, proceed on to your glorified sec 8, crackhouse/rental unit, evict a stoned,drunkin low-life, head back outside, say bye to your best buddies, and scurry off to your next mission from god...
Yes, JR, that's exactly right except a few little details. First, I don't have a million dollar home. I drive a used F-150 (with 150,000 miles) when I'm working. I certainly wouldn't drive a nice vehicle to work in a low income neighborhood. I never go to Starbucks (I don't even like coffee), but I do sometimes stop of McDonalds for a couple of bags of McDonaldland Cookies. I don't "cruise" to work, I just drive. I don't "slap skin" with the "brothers". As I've said before, there are very few black men left in our area. Our low income rentals are mostly filled with white men and women and black women. Where have all the black men gone? I never drop kick a loser or otherwise get involved in violence. I don't usually see crackpipes. Drug addicts are stupid, but they usually aren't so stupid as to be standing outside smoking crack. My Section 8 rentals are not "glorified" and I don't allow illegal drug activity in my rentals, so they are certainly not crackhouses. I am evicting a deadbeat this morning, but that's certainly not an everyday occurrence. I don't have best buddies for tenants - it's strictly business. Finally, operating rentals is not a "mission from God", it's just business.
Other than those few little corrections, you're in the ballpark.
Oh, and for a theme song, I'm not really a music fan. While I'm working on the buildings, I usually listen to Glenn Beck or Rush!
Posted by jordanreed on :
lol....sure...
Posted by jordanreed on :
I'm right on and you know it!!...lol
...and a liar to boot
Posted by glassman on :
I usually listen to Glenn Beck or Rush!
we never would have guessed that on our own.
do you have even one thought of your very own?
i was really amused when the aclu defended rush.
Posted by Propertymanager on :
quote:i was really amused when the aclu defended rush.
I'm not a member of the ACLU, but I could be. While I don't agree with a lot of what they do, they don't seem to have a single minded agenda. They do seem to defend the constitution on both sides. I respect that.
Posted by glassman on :
quote:Originally posted by Propertymanager:
quote:drug dealing, drug use and abuse is statistically no higher or lower among the white or black population
Yeah, Glass, I believe that - just like I believe the government's inflation rate data and unemployment rate data (NOT). The truth is that any numbers put out by the government have to pass through their filters. In the case of inflation and unemployment, the data is manipulated to reflect the inflation and unemployment rates they desire. Their motive is to inspire confidence in the economy (which is pure stupidity). In the case of the drug data, the government passes their numbers through the screen of political correctness.
I don't believe the inflation numbers because I see prices rapidly going up at the grocery store, at the hardware store, and at the gas station. Inflation is not ridiculously low like the government is reporting.
I don't believe the unemployment numbers because I KNOW that the government doesn't count people that aren't looking for a job. There are tens of millions of people getting government handouts who aren't looking for a job. Unemployment rate at 5%??? Not hardly - more like 20%!
I don't believe that the same percentage of whites and blacks are dealing drugs because that's not even close to what I see in the real world. In my experience, a shamefully high percentage of young black males in low income areas are using/dealing illegal drugs. Hint: that's why they are arrested and sent to prison in such high numbers for these crimes. Is that related to the number of black males still in poverty - yes (the fault of the socialists and their government handouts). Like it or not, YOU ON THE LEFT are directly responsible for this sad fact - whether you want to admit it or not! And pretending that there isn't a huge drug problem among the young black male population is simply insanity.
You're right, this is a shameful racial issue - CAUSED BY AND CONTINUOUSLY ENCOURAGED BY YOU SOCIALISTS. Nothing is going to change as long as you lefties pretend that nothing's wrong!
well here's what i was trying to tell you about:
Critics Call College Bust 'Ridiculous, Nonsensical Waste' 75 San Diego State University Students Were Arrested for Charges Stemming From Possession and Sales of Drugs By ANNA SCHECTER May 6, 2008 Ninety-six people, including 75 San Diego State University students, were arrested for charges stemming from possession and sales of cocaine, marijuana, ecstasy and other drugs. http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/story?id=4798906&page=1
note that i'm not one of the people calling this bust a waste. it is sad, but illegal is illegal,
i will say that a bust like this takes a lot more work than a street bust. which is the primary reason you see more street dealers in jail, and you see more street dealers in general just because they are right out on the street...
read the article. the "critic" goes on to say that "This bust could have happened at hundreds and hundreds of campuses across the nation." and the "critic" would be correct....
Posted by jordanreed on :
...Higher learning?
Posted by glassman on :
quote:Originally posted by jordanreed: ...Higher learning?
from the confiscation list? they were pretty high JR.
so this begs the question. how many busts like this would be "tolerated" by the general taxpaying citizen that has put themselves into some serious debt to get their kids into and half-way thru college before people begin to demand a reform to drug and enforcement laws.
we are talking about some serious financial damage in this case. 75 students. that's alot of tuition down the drain. this case represents millions of middle class dollars lost when you add in the legal costs. i bet parents are even going to be blaming the school. the school is hurt too. this is the kind of thing that damages recruiting for ten years.
Posted by bond006 on :
Durg laws,I agree have to be totaly revamped in this country.
As far as weed goes anyway.How can a society that uses alcohal like we do have the nerve to send people away for weed. All the harmful drugs I can see strict laws on but if you legalized weed I am sure that the hard drug use would go done.
Don't forget up until 1914 you could legally buy hard drugs over the counter at a drug store and the nation did not go to hell.
Posted by Propertymanager on :
[quote]so this begs the question. how many busts like this would be "tolerated" by the general taxpaying citizen that has put themselves into some serious debt to get their kids into and half-way thru college before people begin to demand a reform to drug and enforcement laws.[quote]
I don't know. Regardless of the money, cocaine, especially crack cocaine is a very dangerous drug. Getting hooked on crack will definitely ruin your life, even if you aren't prosecuted. The typical crack addict that I see lives in appauling conditions, usually with other crackers and will do ANYTHING to get their next rock. Very bad. I don't think legalizing these drugs would help these students have a bright future.
Posted by glassman on :
I don't think legalizing these drugs would help these students have a bright future.
hmmmm....
so we keep on doing what we're doing which is basically failing?
cuz you are the one who told me that a disproportinate number of black males are druggies and i told you that's not true. here's the proof that it is actually pervasive. the statistics show that drug abuse is truly colorblind. what i was telling you is that the enforcement system and the justice sytem is not.
it's simply that the color that the enforcement and justice system seems to me to see is actually green and not brown or white
i'm not "for" legalising hard drugs... i just thnk we need to come up with a better plan than we have. the first thing to do is to get people into health care instead of jail cells. jail is actually higher education for young criminals.
as for pot? that's about the dumbest thing to make illegal there is. it's growing in ditches all over the midwest. if you know what you are looking at? you'll see thousands of tons of it driving from Chicago to Denver in August. i could care less, it doesn't interest me. i get "high" on creativity...
Posted by bond006 on :
no we should not legalize hard drugs they are real killers. I am talking about weed and weed only.
Posted by Relentless. on :
The real question is: Was the Federal Government ever intended to have the authority to dictate what chemicals or plants you ingest?
Posted by glassman on :
quote:Originally posted by Relentless.: The real question is: Was the Federal Government ever intended to have the authority to dictate what chemicals or plants you ingest?
no, they used Article 6 Pargraph 2 to make drug laws:
This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.
by using treaties? it is possible to make almost any laws "they" want.
and to ratify a treaty? the Senate must "advise" the President to do so with a 2/3 vote. then the President can ratify it.
the President can and does unilaterally un-ratify a treaty...
Posted by Relentless. on :
I can see them having authority to monitor or limit the sale of hazardous materials... Though I'd prefer that being a state issue... But governing intoxicants as they do I'm sure can be proven unconstitutional. Perhaps even having them wrap their nuggets around the fact that people cannot be made better would be a monumental win.
Posted by T e x on :
crank/crack equally harmful/addictive...maybe crank is worse...
Founding Fathers had no experience with either.
Last year, someone nabbed my best dog (prior to a burglary at my house) and let loose or took two other barking/watchdogs from two doors down. I *know* a crackie was involved in my dog's disappearance. Of course, I went by the book, police reports, blah, blah... I also put my lariat in my front seat...in case I saw said crackie tweaking down the street at an opportune time, under the heading "God helps those who help themselves." Fortunately, I found my dog before I found him.
All I can think of for those poor baztaaaages is something like old Australia...ship 'em somewhere severely remote, build 'em up, then work 'em...
Posted by glassman on :
when the supreme court held that CA could not allow medical marijuana sales? the Justices used inter-state commerce laws. they basically said that CA could not guarantee that their pot would not end up in another state...
Posted by Relentless. on :
I agree there is a world of difference between crack, crank and weed... But I still don't see that making any of it illegal.. and certainly to the extent we have, makes anything better.. In fact making this nation a gruesome example of just how bad government can be. I really do think the best way to judge any society is by looking at the criminals. And we have jailhouse after supermax filled to the brim with petty drug offenders that sixty years ago would be common vagrants and not societal scum. And claiming that only the dealers get the big time is pointless when or if you know how every cop and then prosecuter crusade to get every suspect convicted of intent to distribute, no matter if its true or not. Any pothead knows that there are times when your guy only has quarter bags when you're buying an ounce.. get caught and instantly you're the biggest narco trafficker in history, even though you were merely reducing risk by buying a month's worth.
Posted by T e x on :
hazardous materials...
yup...crack/crank
Of course, part of that is the American tendency to "distill" to the "best" molecule: sugar, which is more or less poison; bleached, white flour, etc.
Coca leaves, as used by natives, is a much less acute experience than refined cocaine. Shoot, even the pot they got nowadays...stoooopidly potent. I don't see the point in one toke basically disabling one's motor functions... doesn't seem like fun to me.
Posted by T e x on :
quote:Originally posted by Relentless.: I agree there is a world of difference between crack, crank and weed... But I still don't see that making any of it illegal.. and certainly to the extent we have, makes anything better.. In fact making this nation a gruesome example of just how bad government can be. I really do think the best way to judge any society is by looking at the criminals. And we have jailhouse after supermax filled to the brim with petty drug offenders that sixty years ago would be common vagrants and not societal scum. And claiming that only the dealers get the big time is pointless when or if you know how every cop and then prosecuter crusade to get every suspect convicted of intent to distribute, no matter if its true or not. Any pothead knows that there are times when your guy only has quarter bags when you're buying an ounce.. get caught and instantly you're the biggest narco trafficker in history, even though you were merely reducing risk by buying a month's worth.
I guess I'm saying, bust the behavior: catch a guy sleeping in somebody's flowerbed after being up for a week? If they test positive for crack or crank, now it's "aggravated vagrancy" or whatever.
Basically, the person is no longer in control of themselves. Is kinda like the famous Churchill quote: "Madam, tomorrow I'll be sober, and you'll still be ugly."
But in this case it's, "C'mon...tomorrow you'll still be outta control."
Posted by Relentless. on :
yup, but I don't think allowing the government the authority to control it is a good idea. Simply put: They cannot be trusted. They have proven it for decades now. Furthermore I don't think they should be allowed to own guns. Yup that's right. They want to take our guns because we aren't responsible enough. Well I would argue(And win by a WIDE margin) that it is government that has shown THEY are not responsible enough to own firearms.
Posted by Relentless. on :
Essentially the only real answer to all of our "Issues" is to limit government to fixing roads. They have shown an unwavering inability to avoid life trampling corruption in EVERY power they have taken.
Posted by T e x on :
feel your pain, philosophically speaking...
but we gotta be practical, too.
Did you see my post re: Amory Lovins in Mother Jones?
Posted by Relentless. on :
Nope missed it. Have a link? My laziness is uncompromisable.
Posted by T e x on :
sure, disregard all else
quote: Member
Icon 1 posted May 07, 2008 09:52 AM Profile for T e x Send New Private Message Edit/Delete Post Reply With Quote nice interview with Amory Lovins here; some excerpts:
So a good dose of conservative economic principles would get us even further than trying to give technologies we like subsidies as big as the ones we don't like are already getting. Of course, desubsidizing the whole energy sector would be a wonderful advance.
The barriers that renewables and efficiency face come less from our living in a capitalist market economy and more from not taking market economics seriously, not following our own principles.
For electricity, we decouple utilities' profits from sales so they will no longer be rewarded for selling more energy or penalized for selling less, and if they do something smart to cut our bill, we let them keep a small part, maybe a 10th of the savings, as extra profit—so we, and they, are both incentivized.
-------------------- Nashoba Holba Chepulechi Adventures in microcapitalism... Posts: 18073 | From: Fort Worth | Registered: Apr 2005 | IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Posted by Propertymanager on :
quote:yup, but I don't think allowing the government the authority to control it is a good idea. Simply put: They cannot be trusted. They have proven it for decades now. Furthermore I don't think they should be allowed to own guns.
So, are you saying that the police shouldn't carry guns? Remember that these police are our neighbors and are out there working in a dangerous environment to keep us safe. You would be sending them out to deal with criminals without protection. Who is going to become a police officer if they're not even able to protect themselves? And then what would you do to the criminals when they start killing cops right and left? Get them some therapy?
Posted by Relentless. on :
"property rights activists" are listed as domestic terror organizations...
and the terrorists want to:
"create an atmosphere of anxiety amongst the public"
and
undermine confidence in the government....
and
influence government or social policy...
dang, i thought i was paranoid Posted by Relentless. on :
Yeah they are pretty much describing each and every one of us. How predictable that the word terrorist's definition seems to be growing as fast as the government's budget...
Posted by T e x on :
who was that group outta Uruguay?
Posted by glassman on :
anybody able to find an actual news article on this guy Olafson that's been convicted of transfering a machine gun?
Lou Dobbs seems to be the only Journalist covering it.
i'm trying to find some facts on whether the gun had an auto sear or or not...
Posted by glassman on :
hmmmm....
sorry, the dude is guilty of being dumb at least: Yeah, he told me that the three-round burst wouldn't work and that it would jam up. Q. Did you know what he meant by "three-round burst"? A. Yeah. Q. What did you take him to mean? A. Three rounds come out of it when you would pull the trigger. Q. When you pull the trigger once? A. Yeah. Q. And when he was telling you this, did he tell you that he had fired it automatically in that three-round burst position and that the gun had jammed on him? A. Yes.
here it is again, the govt relying on a strange twist of interpretation of the law to convict somebody:
this is the US Attorney questioning the defense expert witness: Q. And according to what standard would you disqualify that as a machine gun? Where is the authority for that? A. The ATF. In 1986 they actually issued a safety warning to everybody in the industry and asked that everybody stop using M-16 parts in AR-15 rifles. Q. But you're familiar with the statutory definition of a machine gun, right? A. Yes, I am. And it doesn't say by malfunction, it says by design. That gun is not designed to fire full auto. Q. Doesn't it say any firearm that fires automatically more than one round, single function of a trigger without manual reload? A. Shoots or is designed to shoot. That is not designed to shoot more than one round per function of the trigger. Q. It says "or," right? Shoots or is designed to shoot. A. I don't have -- there's actually six separate definitions, but the bottom line is that is not the frame or receiver of a machine gun, that is not a machine gun, that is a malfunctioning defective weapon. Q. And you're confident making that determination without ever having test fired it yourself. A. After viewing the video and viewing Agent Kingery's first report and his second report -- and since they contradict each other he's got a 50 percent error rate going -- I would not fire that firearm until I took it apart and repaired it.
based on the court testimony? IMO the expert is correct. the gun was malfunctioning. the ATF decided it was not a machine gun on its first test, but then used a different kind of ammo KNOWING the malfunction would cause it to fire multiple times... the guy who ran the test should have been very nervous.
this part would be funny except the guy got convicted for being an idiot: THE COURT: Mr. Olofson, do you understand that as a defendant in this case you have a right to testify? THE DEFENDANT: Yes, I do. THE COURT: And do you understand the decision whether or not to testify is yours and yours alone? THE DEFENDANT: Yes, Your Honor. THE COURT: Do you wish to avail yourself of the opportunity to testify in this case? THE DEFENDANT: Yes, I do. THE COURT: So you do want to testify. THE DEFENDANT: No, Your Honor. I want to -- I believe you said avail? As far as my understanding the word is excuse myself from it? THE COURT: You want to avail yourself of the right not the testify then. THE DEFENDANT: Yes, sir, I do not want to testify. http://www.davidkopel.com/2A/Olofson/2-OLOFSON-trial-TRANSCRIPT.pdf
leave little doubt in my mind that the jury had to convict the guy UNLESS they wanted to use jury nullificatin as an excuse...
here's the law:
Under federal statute, under the statute that Mr. Olofson is charged with violating, Section 922(o) of Title 18, a machine gun is defined as: Any weapon which shoots, is designed to shoot, or can be readily restored to shoot, automatically more than one shot, without manual reloading, by a single function of the trigger.
malfunction not an excuse? sheesh. 33 months for having a gun malfunction...
are you getting nervous yet PM?
Posted by Machiavelli on :
quote:Originally posted by glassman:
malfunction not an excuse? sheesh. 33 months for having a gun malfunction...
are you getting nervous yet PM?
.... I hear a Socialist rant coming soon... lol Posted by Propertymanager on :
quote:are you getting nervous yet PM?
Nervous about what? I doubt that my Baretta is suddenly going to start spewing lead in 3 shot bursts!
Posted by glassman on :
read those transcripts, the ATF didn't care.... they more or less admitted they had no evidence the guy altered the gun himself, they simply showed that he had some literature on the subject.
they didn't even charge the guy with manufacturing a machine gun, or possessing one.
their whole case revolved around the fact that the guy he lent the gun to says he told the guy it would malfunction if he flipped the selector switch to an unmarked position on the receiver.
the guy did it to see what would happen (stupid) and the ATF made their case about the transfer.
there is no doubt in my mind the ATF suspects this guy of something else (illegal dealing in firearms) that they couldn't prove so they went after him on a technically provable charge, that even they admit they had to "gimmick" the gun to make happen..
the ammo they used should not be used in the AR-15 it's bolt action ammo... people do it, and it works, sortof, but it damages the weapons irreversibly. anybody that is into match shooting knows this:
If we are talking about .223 Remington SAAMI-spec chambers in an AR15, OH NO!
Do NOT use such a chambering if you EVER plan on shooting any military NATO 5.56 ammo, which happens to be only the most common, least expensive and most widely used AR15 cartridge available in all the world. In other words, NEVER buy/use a SAAMI-spec chamber in a battle rifle, especially if the barrel and chamber are chromed, as you cannot fix it!
Here's the problem. Many NATO cartridges have bullets that will become jammed into the rifling of a SAAMI chambering (the throat is too short). This is VERY DANGEROUS, for a grat number of reasons.
Fulton Armory uses a "5.56 Match" chambering in its rifles/uppers/barrels (in fact our barrels are marked as such), which is a slightly modified SAAMI chamber with a tad longer throat to accommodate NATO bullets. The Fulton Armory 5.56 Match chamber allows for the safe and reliable use of all SAAMI and NATO ammo, while offering the accuracy potential of the SAAMI chamberings with match commercial cartridges. Remember, there's often a large difference between bolt guns and military rifles. This particularly true for the 5.56 vs .223; Fulton Armory is well known for the finest performance for any given platform, and our 5.56 Match chamber is one way we achieve that performance with the AR-15-type rifle.
it really is that simple. the jury was left with no legit choices but to convict him.
the ATF even challenged a gun manufacturer/designers expert testimony on this exact subject... the ATF "expert" people gave very questionable testimony to obtain the conviction. if the defense had hired an unimpeachable expert? the ATF would have been left looking a bit foolish
Posted by Propertymanager on :
OK....still not nervous. I think the guy was probably guilty of several things and it came back to bite him. Fine by me.
Posted by glassman on :
quote:Originally posted by Propertymanager: OK....still not nervous. I think the guy was probably guilty of several things and it came back to bite him. Fine by me.
so you DO beleive in Karma
i'm not particularly upset about this case from what i see. to be honest? the guy could have gotten on the stand and contradicted the accusations by the guy he "loaned" the gun to..
something is fishy about that...
however? i prefer to see the system work the way it is/was designed to work, and not be (ab)used like this, because it is a slippery slope...
just like National Security Letters.. NSL's were designed to make it possible to act quickly in a national security issue? they suddenly became way to easy to use and bypass the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act Court. The FBI (according to the GAO) began using the letters too frequently, and since it's illegal to even disclose the use of such a letter? nobody knows if they were/are being abused or not.. creepy huh? not exactly the kind of power a God Loving Christian Conservative would want to see a Billary using to ferret out unpatriotic er i mean un-Democratic er uh Republican operatives huh? LOL... the sword cuts BOTH ways...
Posted by Pagan on :
*insert sound of wrists being slapped here*
Mayor: Officers in taped beating will be fired Story Highlights 4 officers to be fired, 2 will be disciplined, supervising sergeant demoted
City officials: Beatings were inexcusable but had nothing to do with race
Suspect's mother says she, attorney not allowed to see suspect after his arrest
Video shows police officers punching, kicking suspects, hitting them with batons
PHILADELPHIA, Pennsylvania (CNN) -- Four Philadelphia police officers will be fired, two others will be disciplined and a supervising sergeant will be demoted because of the violent beating of three suspects caught after a shooting, the city's mayor and police commissioner said Monday.
On May 5, a television news helicopter captured footage of more than a dozen predominantly white police officers pulling three African-American men out of a car after a pursuit.
The video footage shows the officers kicking, punching and striking the suspects with batons, while the men lie restrained on the ground.
Two of the men were struck at least 20 times each. Watch the officers pummel the men »
"The video kind of speaks for itself," Police Commissioner Charles Ramsey told WTXF-TV's "Good Day Philadelphia" on May 6.
Ramsey and Philadelphia Mayor Michael Nutter have said the beatings were inexcusable but had nothing to do with race.
Police identified the three suspects as Dwayne Dyches, 24; Brian Hall, 23; and Pete Hopkins, 19. All were charged with several felonies, including aggravated assault.
The suspects were believed to have been involved in a triple shooting at a street corner, Ramsey said. Of the 19 officers on the scene when the suspects were apprehended, eight had physical contact with them. Upon review, the actions of only two of those eight were deemed within appropriate limits, according to the commissioner.
The other six will be disciplined or dismissed. Although the supervising sergeant on the scene did not have physical contact with any of the suspects, he is being demoted for his failure to intervene or subdue his subordinates, Ramsey said. See the community reaction to the case »
The district attorney's office and the FBI will continue their investigations of the incident, Ramsey said. He also said that an outside group, the Police Executive Research Forum, has been contracted to further review the department's policies and procedures.
Lemoia Dyches, the mother of one of the suspects, told CNN that she was unable to see her son after his arrest. "They wouldn't even permit his attorney to see him," she said. "It strikes me as strange."
The police commissioner initially said that officers had seen the suspects fire shots, injuring three people on a street corner. Three suspects fled the scene in a vehicle, and a fourth -- the shooter -- escaped on foot, Ramsey originally said.
However, media reports this weekend indicate police have changed their account; they now allege Hopkins was the shooter.
Deputy Commissioner Richard Ross, in charge of field operations, told The Philadelphia Inquirer there was confusion during the investigation over whether the gunman fled or returned to the vehicle.
"We certainly believe based on police witness accounts that four people drive up," Ross told the newspaper. "Then three people get back in the car and drive off."
The gunman, Ross said, got back in the car. Police told the Inquirer they are still seeking a fourth suspect.
Ramsey said the police force has been under stress since Sgt. Stephen Liczbinski was shot and killed with an assault rifle May 3 while responding to a bank robbery. One suspect in that shooting was killed by police in the confrontation, and another has been apprehended. A third suspect is at large.
Authorities want to know whether the officers' emotions over Liczbinski's death -- and their desire to apprehend the suspect who remains at large -- had a role in their actions.
Stress levels among officers on the street are "simply too high," and the department aims to eliminate 12-hour shifts, Ramsey said soon after the incident.
quote:Originally posted by Propertymanager: OK....still not nervous. I think the guy was probably guilty of several things and it came back to bite him. Fine by me.
ummm.. so it doesn't really matter what they convict him of as long as someone has a hunch he did something wrong.. at some point. So now there is no burden of proof.. just he mighta done something.. we're not sure what so... send him to jail anyways. Makes sense.
Posted by Propertymanager on :
quote:ummm.. so it doesn't really matter what they convict him of as long as someone has a hunch he did something wrong.. at some point.
I didn't say that. He was tried and convicted. It sounds to me like he might have been guilty of quite a few things and may not have been charged with the worst of them. At any rate, justice appears to have been done and the criminal is going to jail.
If you've got a problem with this trial, then do something about it. Send money to his appeal fund. Make a protest sign and let the authorities know how you feel.
Posted by glassman on :
At any rate, justice appears to have been done and the criminal is going to jail.
did you even read the transcripts?
the ATF admitted in court that the gun DID not fire as machine gun on the first test. they ran a second test with different ammo several months later at the SPECIAL request of the investigating agent. this is not normally done...
the guy who "borrowed" the gun gave conflicting statements about whether he had been told it would "misfire" or not...
i stated MY SUSPICION that he might be illegally selling guns, but i've never seen it printed anywhere else... i was simply stating a GUESS.. you don't convict people on my guesses.. you collect evidence.
the guy should have gotten on the stand and testified.
my guess is that he'll get this overturned on appeal if he can get an appeal...
Posted by Relentless. on :
quote:Originally posted by Propertymanager:
quote:ummm.. so it doesn't really matter what they convict him of as long as someone has a hunch he did something wrong.. at some point.
I didn't say that. He was tried and convicted. It sounds to me like he might have been guilty of quite a few things and may not have been charged with the worst of them. At any rate, justice appears to have been done and the criminal is going to jail.
If you've got a problem with this trial, then do something about it. Send money to his appeal fund. Make a protest sign and let the authorities know how you feel.
So he should be convicted of something else because you think it sounds like he did something... maybe?? Saying it twice won't make me miss it... On a different note, and directed towards someone else....
Glass, I know now for certain that a democrat will be elected. Doesn't really matter which one, but it will most certainly be a democrat. Bush get's elected and the net is almost instantly over run with bleeding heart party line liberals... who could not win an argument. Bush's term is up and all of a sudden the net is gathering more and more party line "conservatives"... who can't win an argument. It's almost as if it's the same people.. just different angle.. Almost scripted.
Posted by Propertymanager on :
quote:So he should be convicted of something else because you think it sounds like he did something... maybe?? Saying it twice won't make me miss it...
Then, let's try a third time. The guy was tried and found guilty. Justice was served. I don't think he needs to be tried on anything else, that's probably good enough.
Posted by glassman on :
It's almost as if it's the same people.. just different angle.. Almost scripted.
there's this "cosmic pendulum" that keeps swinging back-n-forth... Democrat-n-Republican Posted by glassman on :
Posted by Pagan on :
May 22, 2008 Court: Texas had no right to take polygamists' kids
An appeals court has ruled that Texas had no right to seize hundreds of children from polygamous sect.
Earlier, it was reported that half the mothers from a polygamist sect that Texas child welfare authorities put in foster care as children have now been declared adults.
Attorneys for Child Protective Services say 15 of the 31 mothers are adults. One is actually 27.
Another girl listed as an underage mother is 14, but the state has conceded she is not pregnant and does not have a child.
The underage mothers had been cited as evidence that the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints committed widespread sexual abuse of girls.
State officials raided a ranch run by a polygamist sect in west Texas. Their contention that abuse was widespread led to the removal of more than 460 children.
Posted by glassman on :
duh! The Third Court of Appeals in Austin ruled that the grounds for removing the children were "legally and factually insufficient" under Texas law.
i wonder how much more this witchhunt is going to cost the taxpayers of Texas(it's already cost alot)
Posted by T e x on :
yesterday, a news story said "Senate considers seizing assets" to pay for caring for the kids...
Posted by Machiavelli on :
quote:Originally posted by T e x: yesterday, a news story said "Senate considers seizing assets" to pay for caring for the kids...
yah, all gov'ts (local, state and Fed) are always looking for excuses to seize assets of citizens.. sometimes they are right and sometimes they aren't...
Posted by Pagan on :
quote:Originally posted by Machiavelli:
quote:Originally posted by T e x: yesterday, a news story said "Senate considers seizing assets" to pay for caring for the kids...
yah, all gov'ts (local, state and Fed) are always looking for excuses to seize assets of citizens.. sometimes they are right and sometimes they aren't...
Well they say everything is bigger in Texas (at least Texans say that), I guess that includes screw ups!
LOL, sorry Tex. I couldn't resist Posted by T e x on :
well, it's a clusterphuk...for sure.
On the one hand, I *can't* imagine what those folks were thinking when they decided to move to rural West Texas: a Saudi oil sheik would've fitted in more easily. Then? reports of older guys being forced onto under-age girls? Why not just have a fireworks show in a hay barn?
On the other hand, the state most certainly could have handled it better than shipping everybody hither and yon. Seems like the majority could have been reunited with their mothers within a week or so, tops...
Posted by Pagan on :
quote:Originally posted by T e x: well, it's a clusterphuk...for sure.
On the one hand, I *can't* imagine what those folks were thinking when they decided to move to rural West Texas: a Saudi oil sheik would've fitted in more easily. Then? reports of older guys being forced onto under-age girls? Why not just have a fireworks show in a hay barn?
On the other hand, the state most certainly could have handled it better than shipping everybody hither and yon. Seems like the majority could have been reunited with their mothers within a week or so, tops...
Yep....a sad situation all around Posted by Propertymanager on :
quote:If it isn't good that everyone apparently gets to choose for themselves what is right...then who gets to choose?
Maybe the sect decided that polygamy was right. Maybe they decided that having sex with 14 year old girls was right. I thought everyone got to choose for themselves what is right? Now you can see how utterly ridiculous this argument is!!!
Why should gays be allowed to get married but not one man with 20 women in the sect? How about 2 women, 3 men and a small goat? Why not? With you Godless socialists, everyone gets to choose what's right for them - right?
Posted by glassman on :
Why should gays be allowed to get married but not one man with 20 women in the sect? How about 2 women, 3 men and a small goat? Why not? With you Godless socialists, everyone gets to choose what's right for them - right?
no proof, just rumor...
seems there's no proof about any of it...
and goats are nasty...
i never could figure out why polygamy is illegal... i asked my wife if she knew why? i had to movein with no-nobadddog and i'm still scratchin' fleas a week later
good thing i have wireless huh?
Posted by Relentless. on :
Glad to see there is at least one judge in this nation with a brain.
Posted by Relentless. on :
quote:Originally posted by glassman: Why should gays be allowed to get married but not one man with 20 women in the sect? How about 2 women, 3 men and a small goat? Why not? With you Godless socialists, everyone gets to choose what's right for them - right?
no proof, just rumor...
seems there's no proof about any of it...
and goats are nasty...
i never could figure out why polygamy is illegal... i asked my wife if she knew why? i had to movein with no-nobadddog and i'm still scratchin' fleas a week later
good thing i have wireless huh?
Jeeze I can barely tolerate one... Imagine five or six? I'd sooner take the goat.
Posted by T e x on :
you *are* the goat...
let's go this way--
beyond the "famous" Mormons (who started as polygamists), can we find any one of that milieu who has contributed mightily to society?
I'm not asking about "famous" in Mormon/polygamy/not-or-maybe-polygamy history, but to society at large?
For example: patents (I would guess a few there); literary prizes (Pultizers, Nat'l Book awards); Nobels...
catch my drift?
Posted by Upside on :
quote:Originally posted by T e x: let's go this way--
beyond the "famous" Mormons (who started as polygamists), can we find any one of that milieu who has contributed mightily to society?
I'm not asking about "famous" in Mormon/polygamy/not-or-maybe-polygamy history, but to society at large?
Jimmy "SuperFly" Snuka.
Posted by T e x on :
quote:Originally posted by Upside:
quote:Originally posted by T e x: let's go this way--
beyond the "famous" Mormons (who started as polygamists), can we find any one of that milieu who has contributed mightily to society?
I'm not asking about "famous" in Mormon/polygamy/not-or-maybe-polygamy history, but to society at large?
Jimmy "SuperFly" Snuka.
really?
what did Jimmy do?
lol...can't wait
Posted by Upside on :
It actually took me some time to come up with that answer. Aside from gay marriage , I had to think about what was the biggest blight on our society today. Came up with the most obvious answer, professional wrestling. So, I did a search for mormon professional wrestlers and found a link to famousmormons.net. There he was along with a few others. Didn't recognize any of the other names though.
Posted by T e x on :
A Mormon "superFly" rassler...
there ya go--dudn't get more ironic than that, eh?
also, good on ya-- who else woulda thought of famousmormons.net?
Posted by The Bigfoot on :
PM I already told you...the goat can't say the vows.
Posted by glassman on :
quote:Originally posted by T e x: you *are* the goat...
let's go this way--
beyond the "famous" Mormons (who started as polygamists), can we find any one of that milieu who has contributed mightily to society?
I'm not asking about "famous" in Mormon/polygamy/not-or-maybe-polygamy history, but to society at large?
For example: patents (I would guess a few there); literary prizes (Pultizers, Nat'l Book awards); Nobels...
catch my drift?
I think Solomon had 700 wives and 300 concubines... he did a few important things...
Martin Luther granted Phillipe of Hess the "right" to a second wife... He worte in a letter to Chancellor Gregor Brück, that he could not forbid a person to marry several wives, for it does not contradict Scripture.
show me where it says on the Bible that you can have only one wife or husband? corinthians suggests it, but also suggests that unmarried and widows stay unmarried...
heck the Pagan Romans were the ones that started the custom. the Bible is full of polygamy, and hte Jews were still doing it until about 1100, when some Rabbis wife nagged at him so much to change the rules that he did...
Posted by Pagan on :
quote:Originally posted by glassman:
quote:Originally posted by T e x: you *are* the goat...
let's go this way--
beyond the "famous" Mormons (who started as polygamists), can we find any one of that milieu who has contributed mightily to society?
I'm not asking about "famous" in Mormon/polygamy/not-or-maybe-polygamy history, but to society at large?
For example: patents (I would guess a few there); literary prizes (Pultizers, Nat'l Book awards); Nobels...
catch my drift?
I think Solomon had 700 wives and 300 concubines... he did a few important things...
Martin Luther granted Phillipe of Hess the "right" to a second wife... He worte in a letter to Chancellor Gregor Brück, that he could not forbid a person to marry several wives, for it does not contradict Scripture.
show me where it says on the Bible that you can have only one wife or husband? corinthians suggests it, but also suggests that unmarried and widows stay unmarried...
heck the Pagan Romans were the ones that started the custom. the Bible is full of polygamy, and hte Jews were still doing it until about 1100, when some Rabbis wife nagged at him so much to change the rules that he did...
C'mon now Glass...we know it's not about the polygamy issue for PM. He has now alluded to marrying a goat twice now in his recent posts. I just wanna know what his fascination with marrying a goat is all about.
Posted by Pagan on :
quote:Originally posted by T e x: well, it's a clusterphuk...for sure.
On the one hand, I *can't* imagine what those folks were thinking when they decided to move to rural West Texas: a Saudi oil sheik would've fitted in more easily. Then? reports of older guys being forced onto under-age girls? Why not just have a fireworks show in a hay barn?
On the other hand, the state most certainly could have handled it better than shipping everybody hither and yon. Seems like the majority could have been reunited with their mothers within a week or so, tops...
Can you say clusterphuk...part deux?
Texas appeals ruling on sect children Story Highlights NEW: Texas appeals ruling to state Supreme Court
Previous court said state had no right to remove children from ranch
More than 400 children taken from polygamist ranch on suspicion of abuse
Parents say children have suffered from separation
SAN ANGELO, Texas (CNN) -- A day after an appeals court ruled that the state of Texas had no right to remove children from a polygamist sect's ranch, the state appealed that decision to the Texas Supreme Court.
The state Department of Family and Protective Services argues in its 27-page motion that the Texas 3rd District Court of Appeals overstepped its bounds.
The appeals court's ruling Thursday could have sent home nearly all of the more than 400 children removed April 3 from the Fundamentalist Church of Latter-Day Saints' ranch in Eldorado.
Authorities contend minors possibly were being sexually abused at the ranch.
If the state's Supreme Court appeal fails, a permanent reunion of families is assured, said Jeffrey Toobin, CNN senior legal analyst.
"I think it's clear that if [Thursday's ruling] stands, all these kids are going back with their mothers," Toobin said on CNN's "Anderson Cooper 360°."
A sect mother who has four children in state custody had said Thursday that the possibility of an appeal kept her from celebrating too much.
"I'm very grateful, but I'd like to see the children in my arms before I rejoice greatly," Margaret Jessop said on CNN's "Larry King Live." Watch Jessop react to the ruling »
Jessop and other FLDS parents said they had been permitted regular visits with their children in state custody.
Zavenda Young said two of her children were sent to Waco, Texas, and two to Hockley, 148 miles away.
"They're in Boys and Girls Country in Hockley. And it's just a -- it's an institution," she told host Larry King.
Their father, Edson Jessop, said the experience has been rough on the children.
"You can see it's a lot of stress on them," he said. "Every time we leave, they go through that trauma again. It's enough to rip your heart out."
"They feel betrayed by adults, and they're hurting very badly," Margaret Jessop added.
The Texas Child Protective Services Department's Web site says the agency has been "coordinating with many professional service and government agencies to ensure the safety, health and comfort of the children and women in Eldorado."
A statement from the agency Thursday said it did the right thing when it raided the ranch.
"Child Protective Services has one duty -- to protect children," the statement said. "When we see evidence that children have been sexually abused and remain at risk of further abuse, we will act."
quote:Originally posted by Pagan: C'mon now Glass...we know it's not about the polygamy issue for PM. He has now alluded to marrying a goat twice now in his recent posts. I just wanna know what his fascination with marrying a goat is all about.
i dunno but he sure is making the goats nervous
Posted by Propertymanager on :
That's too funny. Who would have known that goats could climb a tree?
Posted by glassman on :
i didn't. i did know they could get into all kinds of other mischief tho...
Posted by T e x on :
hope they're not fainting goats...
Posted by SeekingFreedom on :
Was your question what have poligamists, mormon or otherwise, done for society, Tex? Or what have mormons done for society? I understood the first but I don't think SuperFly had more than one wife.
Posted by Relentless. on :
The point was NEVER what polygamists did or did not do for or to society. The point was that the government was wrong in raiding the community. Not merely wrong.. but criminal.. who bets there will ever be charges laid. I would like for everyone.. or just anyone to enter into an exercise with me. Let's think about the things we as "citizens" cannot do that government agents already have done.. Can I barge into a house.. kill a 93 year old woman.. then claim.. oops wrong house without going to jail? Can I demand you pay me between ten and thirty-seven percent of your gross earnings under punishment of incarceration? Continue with this list and then ponder the wording of the constitution.
Posted by glassman on :
the Texas supreme court has just told the State to give the kids back to their parents...
our Justice system is not completely broken...
they did not tell the State to stop investigating.. (good)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
i don't either. they have 2.3 kids and 3 marriages... ![[More Crap]](graemlins/morecrap.png)
![[BadOne]](graemlins/headbash.gif)
![[Were Down]](graemlins/weredown.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
