Getbig.com: American Bodybuilding, Fitness and Figure
Getbig Main Boards => Politics and Political Issues Board => Topic started by: The Coach on May 07, 2009, 08:07:50 AM
-
Here is a little test that will help you decide.
The answer can be found by posing the following question:
You're walking down a deserted street with your wife and two small children.
Suddenly, an Islamic terrorist with a huge knife comes around the corner, locks eyes with you, screams obscenities, praises Allah, raises the knife, and charges at you.
You are carrying a Colt Model 1911 45 cal. automatic pistol and you are an expert shot.
You have mere seconds before he reaches you and your family.
What do you do?
........................ ........................ ...............
THINK CAREFULLY AND
THEN SCROLL DOWN SLOWLY:
Democrat's Answer :
Well, that's not enough information to answer the question!
Does the man look poor or oppressed?
Have I ever done anything to him that would inspire him to attack?
Could we run away?
What does my wife think?
What about the kids?
Could I possibly swing the gun like a club and knock the knife out of his hand?
What does the law say about this situation?
Does the pistol have appropriate safety built into it?
Why am I carrying a loaded gun anyway, and what kind of message does this send to society and to my children?
Is it possible he'd be happy with just killing me?
Does he definitely want to kill me, or would he be content just to wound me?
If I were to grab his knees and hold on, could my family get away while he was stabbing me?
Should I call 9-1-1?
Why is this street so deserted?
We need to raise taxes, have paint and weed day and make this happier, healthier street that would discourage such behavior.
This is all so confusing!
I need to debate this with some friends for few days and try to come to a consensus.
........................ ........................ ......................
Republican's Answer:
BANG!
........................ ........................ ..................
Redneck's Answer:
BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG !
Click..... (Sounds of reloading)
BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! Click
Daughter: 'Nice grouping, Daddy! Were those the Winchester Silver Tips or Hollow Points?! '
Son: 'Can I shoot the next one?!'
Wife: 'You ain't taking that to the taxidermist!
;D
-
stupid post coach
however it reminds me of a quote i once heard = "a liberal is someone who is so open minded they wont even take their own side of an argument."
-
stupid post coach
however it reminds me of a quote i once heard = "a liberal is someone who is so open minded they wont even take their own side of an argument."
LOL......I got that in an email last night.
-
LOL......I got that in an email last night.
Looks like the "Democrat" in your chain letter has a greater sense and range of morality and a better moral compass when compared to the "Republican" or the "Redneck".
That is how I interpret your satirical and pointless chain letter.
-
Also, the "democrat" in your chain letter certainly displays better problem solving skills, reasoning,critical thinking and logic.
This is a self-Pwning Coach.
-
Looks like the "Democrat" in your chain letter has a greater sense and range of morality and a better moral compass when compared to the "Republican" or the "Redneck".
That is how I interpret your satirical and pointless chain letter.
Lets say you have kids TA and a burgler breaks into your house, you have a gun and you walk in the kids room and you see the burgler standing over your kid, what do you do?
-
(http://www.costaricapages.com/panama/blog/wp-content/uploads/2008/12/redneck1.jpg)
-
Also, the "democrat" in your chain letter certainly displays better problem solving skills, reasoning,critical thinking and logic.
This is a self-Pwning Coach.
I have the sense to realize my family comes first, I blow him away in a heartbeat.
-
I'm Canadian :D
-
TA and Coach=both deluded in different camps
-
Also, the "democrat" in your chain letter certainly displays better problem solving skills, reasoning,critical thinking and logic.
This is a self-Pwning Coach.
BTW, it's not a chain letter.
-
Don't know, don't care. But I would like that Colt model 1911 45 cal. Hope it's plated. Hand weapon made special to stop the Muslim religious zealots in the Philippines. Stopped them real good and real dead on the spot. Fired a few round off that Colt model piece from a retired army SF officer a while back. Sweet weapon.
-
Lets say you have kids TA and a burgler breaks into your house, you have a gun and you walk in the kids room and you see the burgler standing over your kid, what do you do?
First point the gun, then threaten to use the gun, then if that does not work, aim and shoot a place to where the criminal is subdued.
-
I would also state, "we can do this the easy way, or the hard way."
Ideally I would hold him at gun point until the cops get there.
-
Slow day on the gay pron threads huh?
Fucking idiot.
-
First point the gun, then threaten to use the gun, then if that does not work, aim and shoot a place to where the criminal is subdued.
hahah, you are such a pussy f.aggot.
i am sure you are against the death penalty for child molesters also ::)
-
Lets say you have kids TA and a burgler breaks into your house, you have a gun and you walk in the kids room and you see the burgler standing over your kid, what do you do?
I do have to say though, that I do have a handgun, I do not keep it loaded nor do I have any bullets for it. It was my fathers old Colt Revolver. So I would have to rely on the threat of the gun in my case if we are to apply this as a real life scenario using the gun I have and the bullets that I do not have.
-
First point the gun, then threaten to use the gun, then if that does not work, aim and shoot a place to where the criminal is subdued.
Fair enough.
-
hahah, you are such a pussy f.aggot.
i am sure you are against the death penalty for child molesters also ::)
I am against the death penalty in all cases. Too many have been executed while innocent and too many have been placed on death row even though they were later found to be innocent. I do think 12-14 hour work days at whatever project the State has going is a better usage of the individual and is more punishing not to mention more cost effective as incarceration is by far cheaper than execution.
I do not have a knee jerk reaction when it comes to Child Molestation. For instance, I have a hard time believing that a 19 year old having sex with a 15 year old when the age of consent is 16 constitutes child molestation, especially if both are consenting partners.
-
I do have to say though, that I do have a handgun, I do not keep it loaded nor do I have any bullets for it. It was my fathers old Colt Revolver. So I would have to rely on the threat of the gun in my case if we are to apply this as a real life scenario using the gun I have and the bullets that I do not have.
dumbest thing I've ever read. Do you carry a plastic knife?
-
dumbest thing I've ever read. Do you carry a plastic knife?
No. But as I stated, I have a handgun that was my fathers VERY old Colt revolver. I have never fired it, nor have I ever thought to buy bullets for it. Its very old, but I am sure it still works as it looks brand new.
I would have to use the threat of the gun, since I do not have any bullets. I am just telling you what I would HAVE to do if this were extrapolated to a real life situation to where I had to use the gun that I have.
Of course I could go buy some bullets, but I do not think I would ever need to, nor do I care to.
-
No. But as I stated, I have a handgun that was my fathers VERY old Colt revolver. I have never fired it, nor have I ever thought to buy bullets for it. Its very old, but I am sure it still works as it looks brand new.
I would have to use the threat of the gun, since I do not have any bullets. I am just telling you what I would HAVE to do if this were extrapolated to a real life situation to where I had to use the gun that I have.
Of course I could go buy some bullets, but I do not think I would ever need to, nor do I care to.
NEVER pull a gun unless you are prepared to use it.
-
I do not have a knee jerk reaction when it comes to Child Molestation. For instance, I have a hard time believing that a 19 year old having sex with a 15 year old when the age of consent is 16 constitutes child molestation, especially if both are consenting partners.
Do your knees jerk when a 35 year-old troop leader cornholes a "consensual" scout? 'Cause you probably wanna consider the circumstances and whatnot.
-
NEVER pull a gun unless you are prepared to use it.
I think a lot can be accomplished with just threatening usage of a gun, without ever intending to use it.
-
I think a lot can be accomplished with just threatening usage of a gun, without ever intending to use it.
What if he pulls one out on you after you tried to bluff and he has a real one?
-
I am against the death penalty in all cases. Too many have been executed while innocent and too many have been placed on death row even though they were later found to be innocent. I do think 12-14 hour work days at whatever project the State has going is a better usage of the individual and is more punishing not to mention more cost effective as incarceration is by far cheaper than execution.
DNA has forever changed "wrongly executed."
That said, I'm sure your progressive sensibilities prevent you from imposing your morality on the victim's grieving family.
-
What if he pulls one out on you after you tried to bluff and he has a real one?
IF I am in a position to overpower him or if I can get in that position, I will try. Or if I percieve that negotiations are more effective then trying to subdue, then negotiation begins. I also may be able to get him to lower his guard with negotiations and THEN have an opportunity to overpower him. I have read of successful attempts where the victim was able to negotiate the criminal into surrendering or to flee or what have you.
If that doesn`t work, and he shoots me, then clearly I am out of options, but I did have at least several to consider.
-
DNA has forever changed "wrongly executed."
That said, I'm sure your progressive sensibilities prevent you from imposing your morality on the victim's grieving family.
DNA has NOT changed the equation absolutely. DNA can easily be wrong, planted, mixed or just not enough.
-
DNA has NOT changed the equation absolutely. DNA can easily be wrong, planted, mixed or just not enough.
Yes, like on CSI, right?
-
Good thread Coach..TA first off the Dem would be dead....second that handgun u have is as much use as a boat anchor in the desert. Buy some friggen bullets.
-
Good thread Coach..TA first off the Dem would be dead....second that handgun u have is as much use as a boat anchor in the desert. Buy some friggen bullets.
Maybe he could buy blanks this way the robber thinks he is shooting, but TA gets to fell that he actually wont be doing any harm to the mugger?
-
DNA has forever changed "wrongly executed."
That said, I'm sure your progressive sensibilities prevent you from imposing your morality on the victim's grieving family.
Consider this.
I stab someone at a grocery store, there is only one other person in there. The other person happens to be the boyfriend of the girl I stabbed. They have a rocky relationship and he has been arrested for domestic abuse towards her in the past.
After stabbing the girl, I force the boyfriend to change clothes with me and I force him to take the knife.
I then call the cops anonymously and report seeing a disturbance in a grocery store. Cops arrive and arrest the boyfriend. Their case is then built citing DNA evidence, prior record and motive. The prosecutor wants the death penalty and feels his case is a slam dunk due to DNA.
The DNA points to the boyfriend and not me. Is the DNA valid?
-
IF I am in a position to overpower him or if I can get in that position, I will try. Or if I percieve that negotiations are more effective then trying to subdue, then negotiation begins. I also may be able to get him to lower his guard with negotiations and THEN have an opportunity to overpower him. I have read of successful attempts where the victim was able to negotiate the criminal into surrendering or to flee or what have you.
If that doesn`t work, and he shoots me, then clearly I am out of options, but I did have at least several to consider.
Funny, most Liberals would laugh or get a bit defensive about the silly characterization. But you ARE the characterization.
-
Consider this.
I stab someone at a grocery store, there is only one other person in there. The other person happens to be the boyfriend of the girl I stabbed. They have a rocky relationship and he has been arrested for domestic abuse towards her in the past.
After stabbing the girl, I force the boyfriend to change clothes with me and I force him to take the knife.
I then call the cops anonymously and report seeing a disturbance in a grocery store. Cops arrive and arrest the boyfriend. Their case is then built citing DNA evidence, prior record and motive.
The DNA points to the boyfriend and not me. Is the DNA valid?
Dont you realize that most stores have a security camera and other customers?????
-
Consider this.
I stab someone at a grocery store, there is only one other person in there. The other person happens to be the boyfriend of the girl I stabbed. They have a rocky relationship and he has been arrested for domestic abuse towards her in the past.
After stabbing the girl, I force the boyfriend to change clothes with me and I force him to take the knife.
I then call the cops anonymously and report seeing a disturbance in a grocery store. Cops arrive and arrest the boyfriend. Their case is then built citing DNA evidence, prior record and motive.
The DNA points to the boyfriend and not me. Is the DNA valid?
Consider this. You don't form policy based on a movie of the fucking week scenario. Grow up.
-
Dont you realize that most stores have a security camera and other customers?????
Not all do, and not all are on and functioning, nor do are the effective 100 percent of the time.
Take cameras out of my scenario as they had none in the real scenario. Is the DNA evidence valid?
-
Consider this. You don't form policy based on a movie of the fucking week scenario. Grow up.
This was an actual case by the way.
So, answer the question. IS the DNA evidence valid?
Are you unable to answer?
-
Consider this.
I stab someone at a grocery store, there is only one other person in there. The other person happens to be the boyfriend of the girl I stabbed. They have a rocky relationship and he has been arrested for domestic abuse towards her in the past.
After stabbing the girl, I force the boyfriend to change clothes with me and I force him to take the knife.
I then call the cops anonymously and report seeing a disturbance in a grocery store. Cops arrive and arrest the boyfriend. Their case is then built citing DNA evidence, prior record and motive. The prosecutor wants the death penalty and feels his case is a slam dunk due to DNA.
The DNA points to the boyfriend and not me. Is the DNA valid?
Cases are not built entirely on DNA. Your case falls apart because you are assuming the victim has the same size clothes as you.
also, there is no death penalty there under most laws because there are no aggravating circumstances.
-
Cases are not built entirely on DNA. Your case falls apart because you are assuming the victim has the same size clothes as you.
also, there is no death penalty there under most laws because there are no aggravating circumstances.
Cases ARE built on Circumstantial evidence ALL the time.
DNA is not circumstantial evidence and in fact hard evidence and cases are built on it ALL the time.
The prosecutor surely did seek the death penalty and was able to proceed.
-
Cases are not built entirely on DNA. Your case falls apart because you are assuming the victim has the same size clothes as you.
also, there is no death penalty there under most laws because there are no aggravating circumstances.
Uh here is one built SOLELY on DNA.
East Side Rapist, Known Solely by DNA, Is Indicted
By JULIAN E. BARNES
Published: Thursday, March 16, 2000
With a series of genetic markers as their evidence, Manhattan prosecutors announced the indictment yesterday of the man known as the East Side rapist, even though investigators still do not know who he is.
The indictment, one of the few instances in the country that a DNA signature alone has been used to charge a crime, will prevent the statute of limitations from expiring in three of the seven rapes the man is suspected of committing between 1994 and 1998. The grand jury charged him just four days before the five-year statute of limitations would have expired on the earliest attack cited in the indictment, said Robert M. Morgenthau, the Manhattan district attorney.
Police Commissioner Howard Safir said he believed that the East Side rapist was still at large.
''We think this is an innovative and creative way of holding those accountable for their actions,'' Mr. Safir said. ''With DNA technology we can convict someone today, tomorrow or 10 years from now.''
In October, prosecutors in Milwaukee announced that they had filed charges in a series of three rapes against a man known only by his DNA code. There has been at least one other such warrant based on DNA evidence, in a 1991 case in Kansas. No one has been apprehended in either case.
Prosecutors and legal experts predicted that the number of indictments based solely on DNA evidence would increase rapidly in coming years.
''This is a very new, very creative kind of prosecution,'' said Linda Fairstein, the chief of the Manhattan district attorney's sex crimes unit.
Lawrence Kobilinsky, a professor of forensic science at John Jay College of Criminal Justice, said that indicting a person known solely by DNA sequence was more precise than indicting a person known only by name.
''If you have someone with the name John Smith, there are probably thousands of people,'' Mr. Kobilinsky said. ''A genetic profile is a much better way to identify a single person.''
The East Side rapist attacked all but one of his victims between 64th and 91st Streets, west of Lexington Avenue after 2 a.m., the police said. He would typically follow a lone woman and slip into the lobby of her building before the door closed, said Lt. Thomas P. Carney, the commander of the Manhattan Special Victims Unit.
Lieutenant Carney said DNA evidence has eliminated two suspects in the attacks over the last year. One man who police followed last year matched the physical description of the suspect, frequented the same area and seemed to have difficultly dealing with women. But when officers tested two samples of his DNA, collected surreptitiously, the man was exonerated, Lieutenant Carney said.
The probability that a person other than the attacker has a DNA profile matching the one in the Manhattan indictment is 1 in 240 billion, Mr. Morgenthau said.
The rapist last struck a year and half ago, and some investigators think that he has left New York City. But police officers said the indictment ensures that their work will not go to waste if the rapist is eventually identified by name.
''From our standpoint, we have been working on this for three and a half years, we have done an enormous amount of work,'' Lieutenant Carney said. ''If the statute of limitations had passed, that would have been very disheartening.''
The statute of limitations has run out on 2 of the 16 attacks attributed to the East Side rapist, police officials said. The two attacks following those, on March 19 and Aug. 17, 1995, were included in yesterday's indictment, along with an rape on April 6, 1997.
Mr. Morgenthau said DNA evidence was recovered in a fourth attack linked to the East Side rapist and added that an indictment in that case was expected. Although DNA evidence does not exist in the other attacks, police have linked them to the same man by the description of the attacker and details on how he assaulted his victims, Lieutenant Carney said.
The victim of the Aug. 17 attack said in an interview last month that she was worried the statute of limitations would run out before her attacker was arrested. ''As far as I'm concerned, there should not be a time limit to prosecute these cases,'' she said.
Last month, Gov. George E. Pataki proposed eliminating the statute of limitations on rape and eight other types of crimes. Rape victim advocates and law enforcement officials urged removing the limitations in crimes in which DNA evidence can be used in prosecution years after a crime occurred.
But Susan Hendricks, deputy attorney in charge for the criminal defense division of the Legal Aid Society, expressed concern over the use of such indictments to circumvent statutes of limitations. As time passes, other evidence that could exonerate a suspect might disappear, said Ms. Hendricks, who contended that DNA evidence is not foolproof.
''The more time that passes, the more troubling this strategy is, because the more potential witnesses have been lost,'' she said. There are about 12,000 New York City rape cases in which the evidence has not been examined for a DNA signature. Mr. Morgenthau said his prosecutors and investigators were combing through old rape cases, looking for assaults that match a pattern, then conducting tests on DNA samples taken from the evidence. Cases that follow a pattern would be the first additional John Doe indictments made, he said. Mr. Morgenthau added that he had also asked state and city officials for an additional $500,000 to create a cold case squad for rape cases.
''We are going through them, trying to find patterns,'' Mr. Morgenthau said. ''We are starting to do it, but we need more funding.''
-
Cases ARE built on Circumstantial evidence ALL the time.
DNA is not circumstantial evidence and in fact hard evidence and cases are built on it ALL the time.
The prosecutor surely did seek the death penalty and was able to proceed.
Most states require an aggravating circumstances for death penalty.
-
This was an actual case by the way.
So, answer the question. IS the DNA evidence valid?
Are you unable to answer?
So.
Perhaps. Maybe not.
I did.
And?
-
http://books.google.com/books?id=q7xs0dO-zpgC&pg=PA136&lpg=PA136&dq=cases++built+solely+on+dna&source=bl&ots=uKIy2trEs9&sig=1bfFfteJ1-p7z3Dys7_M97pPEHI&hl=en&ei=_A0DSpjsLdOJtgeewNiTBw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=2#PPA136,M1
A good read for anyone wondering about if DNA can be used solely to build a case.
-
You are absolutely crippled by your open mind. You know this, right?
-
So.
Perhaps. Maybe not.
I did.
And?
You just proved my point. YOU admitted DNA evidence is not an absolute when determining guilt or innocence and can be flawed and that the wrong people can easily end up facing the death penalty even with DNA evidence.
-
And what are the stats on that....
-
And what are the stats on that....
The error of DNA in court cases?
-
when the gunfight does start - god forbid - you have to shoot center mass.
Chances are inside 10 feet he'll be able to touch you even with a heart shot. hitting him in the leg can still get you stabbed or covered in HIV blood, etc.
You make every effort to back out of the threat. when cornered, you fire center mass until the threat is no longer a threat. you dont shoot him in the back. you likely get 1-2 shots in his midsection or chest then he turns and runs. Then you run too. You don't finish him, chase him, etc. You run and call the police, the same action you'd do from the get-go if you have eevn a sliver or escape.
it is your responsibility to flee. When you cannot flee, you fire until the threat is no longer a threat.
-
when the gunfight does start - god forbid - you have to shoot center mass.
Chances are inside 10 feet he'll be able to touch you even with a heart shot. hitting him in the leg can still get you stabbed or covered in HIV blood, etc.
You make every effort to back out of the threat. when cornered, you fire center mass until the threat is no longer a threat. you dont shoot him in the back. you likely get 1-2 hots in his midsection or chest then he turns and runs. Then you run too. You don't finish him, chase him, etc. You run and call the police, the same action you'd do from the get-go if you have eevn a sliver or escape.
it is your responsibility to flee. When you cannot flee, you fire until the threat is no longer a threat.
good post.
-
good post.
I agree with TA that shooting the dude is last resort. I would scream 'back the fuck up' my biggest cop voice. I've broken up several fights just by shouting "breka that shit up", or my favorite, "Sheriff's Dept". People fistfighting turn white and freeze when they hear "sherrifs dept".
granted, i justify it (should anyone ever call me on it) by saying i was simply informing the gentlemen fighting that the sherrifs would be here shortly. But in every fight I've used it, the 2 stop and the bouncer gets his chance to break it up.
avoidance: get on the other side of the street.
negotiation: tell bad gut to back the F up.
contact. shoot the prick.
-
Bizarre. I can't even slightly imagine being of the mentality..that would try to reason, empathize or cooperate if I was armed and me or my family was threatened by a predator. They'd be dead and deservedly so. Now I realize the true extent of the peril our country is in when we have leaders that would deal with threats in the so called "Liberal" way.
-
I agree with TA that shooting the dude is last resort. I would scream 'back the fuck up' my biggest cop voice. I've broken up several fights just by shouting "breka that shit up", or my favorite, "Sheriff's Dept". People fistfighting turn white and freeze when they hear "sherrifs dept".
granted, i justify it (should anyone ever call me on it) by saying i was simply informing the gentlemen fighting that the sherrifs would be here shortly. But in every fight I've used it, the 2 stop and the bouncer gets his chance to break it up.
avoidance: get on the other side of the street.
negotiation: tell bad gut to back the F up.
contact. shoot the prick.
We weren't talking about a fistfight, we were talking about an armed assailant about to kill you or your family. Why would there be any option other than killing the savage?
-
You just proved my point. YOU admitted DNA evidence is not an absolute when determining guilt or innocence and can be flawed and that the wrong people can easily end up facing the death penalty even with DNA evidence.
Easily? Brilliant, let's use your perfect hypotheticals to form policy then 'cause it probably happens all the time.
-
We weren't talking about a fistfight, we were talking about an armed assailant about to kill you or your family. Why would there be any option other than killing the savage?
LMAO... i missed the part about knife and screaming hahaha
sorry, yeah, I'm emptying that gun into his gut without hesitation. Once he's inside 21 feet, i'm probably getting cut no matter how many times I hit him, as a rule.
nothing to talk about once he presents a weapon and charges me.
-
LMAO... i missed the part about knife and screaming hahaha
sorry, yeah, I'm emptying that gun into his gut without hesitation. Once he's inside 21 feet, i'm probably getting cut no matter how many times I hit him, as a rule.
nothing to talk about once he presents a weapon and charges me.
But what if he was just having a bad day 'cause Mom used to send him to bed with no supper when he peed his little boy bed and perhaps further negotiations could turn that frown upside down?
-
This is the stupidest "test" i've ever seen. Not to mention highly offensive to anyone of Muslim faith. Coach you realize more people are killed in America by Americans than by extremists right? In fact why am i even writing this coach is ready 'soapy studs' or hiding in the USC weight room trying to snap pictures of them in the shower.
-
Well maybe muslims should have done more after 911 to distance themselves from the nutbags. The enemy we're facing all have one thing in common....they're all muslim and envoke Allah actively in their crusade against the West.
-
lol. I wouldn't have a gun. I'd just break his neck. I guess that's what an independent would do? :)
-
Well maybe muslims should have done more after 911 to distance themselves from the nutbags. The enemy we're facing all have one thing in common....they're all muslim and envoke Allah actively in their crusade against the West.
How dare you!
-
Well maybe muslims should have done more after 911 to distance themselves from the nutbags. The enemy we're facing all have one thing in common....they're all muslim and envoke Allah actively in their crusade against the West.
You obviously don't have many Muslim friends or watch much TV. Post 9/11 MANY Muslim leaders from around the world condemned the attacks and have been working ever since to erase the stereo type that Muslims are all terrorists.
You're from New England right? A lot of Irish people there that you know? Catholic faith perhaps? By your logic they are all child molesters are they not? Because the actions of a few must therefore be the actions of all.
-
Fact=Islam is a violent religion
Fact=US intervention puts oil on the fire
Fact=makes it EVEN more violent
-
Post 9/11 MANY Muslim leaders from around the world condemned the attacks
Can you be more specific?
-
First point the gun, then threaten to use the gun, then if that does not work, aim and shoot a place to where the criminal is subdued.
Ridiculous.
Never shoot to wound. If you have to use deadly force, it's for one reason only.