There's a big difference between whether he would be charged and whether he would be convicted. If it went too far and the usual grievance groups popped up, maybe charges to do some CYA.

I think that, if you managed to get the pipe away from one of a group, that both the law and your fellow citizens in the form of a jury would give you a tremendous amount of latitude in how you decide it is most appropriate to defend yourself.

I would imagine that the "reasonable man" standard would come into play here- Is the level of force this person employed reasonable given the circumstances?

Given the fact that you are justified in shooting and killing an intruder in your home (generally), I would imagine a serious beat down in the street for would-be muggers would go over without too much comment.

Now here's a question- Obviously these clowns picked the wrong guy. Was it a young man these animals attacked? That always seemed to me to be exceedingly stupid, since young men generally don't run around with a ton of jewelry or other fenceable items, and are in posession of testosterone, which makes reactions under intense pressure erratic and unpredictable at best.

Disturbing, because that is far from a seedy corner over there. Little isolated, but not what I would consider high risk.



GWB

To Roaring-

Anyone that thinks GWB or Clinton was going to declare themselves dictator is by definition a moonbat. It's an equal opportunity insult that transcends the political spectrum from right to left.

To Pisces-

First, you are barred from firearm ownership if you are convicted of a crime, or felony, in New Jersey. NOT a DOP offense, which in other states is called a misdemenor.

Second, if you are a LEGAL PERMANENT RESIDENT (green card holder) you are most certainly permitted to own firearms. If you're an illegal alien, of course, you're not supposed to be here legally to begin with, so then yes, it would be difficult for you to legally obtain a firearm, along with a laundry list of other things available to those who are not breaking the law.


There are remedies for regaining your right to own firearms (along with, for example, your right to vote). It's called getting an expungement. You go before a judge and explain why your prior behavior from, for example, 15 years ago shouldn't be held against you. If the judge agrees with you, your rights are re-instated. if not, you're stuck.

I don't think that re-instating the rights of those with violent histories, gang members or drug dealers makes a whole lot of sense.

As far as non-citizens having a right to own firearms, well, if you believe that we are endowed by our Creator with certain inalienable rights, then yeah, everyone in the world should have a right to protect themselves as they see fit. The Constitution does not guarantee freedoms- Those freedoms exist, whether despots agree to recognize them or not, for all. It is not predicated on a bunch of guys writing it down on a piece of paper. The Constitution is simply stating the obvious. If the Constitution went away tomorrow, freedom would not cease to exist....Although we may be forced to fight for it....

And that being the case, wouldn't you rather be armed?

GWB

This is a tired topic. Gun "control" doesn't work. People in most areas won't tolerate it, and politicians, except in ultra-liberal enclaves, won't touch it.

There is a plethora of statistics that show a correlation between allowing law-abiding citizens the ability to protect themselves and a drop in crime.

As far as the wild claims of suicide and whatnot, I am not sure why the suicide of a disturbed individual with any item should in some way preclude me from owning said item. People kill themselves with sleeping pills, too. Shall we ban them? I suppose after that they'll use their belts.

We shall soon all be walking around with our pants drooping.


The fact is this- If you are willing to farm out the protection of the most precious things you have, that being your life, your family's lives, then you and I are two very different people.

The cops are not obligated to protect you. Ask the Supreme Court. They have been clear and emphatic about that.

Why in the world would you ever expect someone to protect something for you when you're unwilling to do so yourself?

My life, and the lives of my loved ones, are much, much too precious to me to outsource their protection completely to someone else. Not going to happen. Not today, not ever.

Responsible gun ownership is another issue alltogether. Let me just say this- I keep hearing about how guns are "taken from the owner and used against them" or how small children accidentally shoot themselves. 5 gallon water buckets are responsible for more deaths of children under 5 from accidents than firearms.

Be clear that in many of these "children get killed by guns" studies that the "children" as included are up to 22 years old. I think you can figure out why they're getting killed by guns- Someone killed them in commission of another criminal act- Gangbanging, whatever.

Deterrance with a firearm, thankfully, seldom ends up with a criminal getting shot. The simple fact that one is produced or available can end a confrontation without a shot being fired. Keep that in mind when you are looking for lurid tales of Charlie Bronson wiping out rapists sneaking around the kid's bedroom.

This is, in the end, not an empirical issue but purely an emotive one. The facts are crystal clear. If you dislike firearms, that's fine. If you have no interest in learning to shoot, that's OK too. Some people hate driving stick. But at the very least, do yourself a favor and learn how to do it.

Just in case it comes up. Better to have the knowledge and not need it than to need it and not have it.

And who knows- You might drop some of the animistic repulsion you hold to an inanimate object and find yourself approaching the issue more logically.


Edit: Let's not forget why gun control laws were first enacted and where- After the Civil War, in the South, to keep guns out of the hands of....Well, you can guess, can't you? In the end, gun control has always been about who controls the use of force. If it's only the State, then you don't have much to fall back on as a citizen.

There are hundreds of millions of firearms in this country, and millions of people who know how to use them. If, for example, Bushy McHalliburton decided he wanted to subjugate America into a dictatorship, as so many moonbats believe (dont' feel bad- Conservatives felt the same way about Clinton), the one thing stopping him from being able to do so is alot of armed folks willing to go to the barricades, and go with alot more than peace signs and patcholi oil. The Founders were clear that the 2nd Amendment was 1 part self defense, 20 parts guarantee of freedom.

Thanks

GWB

2 questions:

First, why do the "disadvantaged" need broadband? What can they do with broadband that they cannot do with dialup?

Is mp3 watching, porno downloads, bit torrent burns, and online gaming "necessary services" that government (ie, homeowners paying property taxes) are obligated to provide?

Why, exactly?

Also, let's be honest- It won't be senior citizens and low income people hooking up to the network.

Going forward, you're going to see the taking of a nascent technology (15 years the internet has been a household word- we're just getting started) from a center of innovation to becoming a "government service" that will run as efficiently and improve as quickly as other "government services".

And why? Because populist politicians are always looking for something else to "give" away.....from someone else's pocket.

I hate Comcast with a white hot burning passion from a service standpoint. The connection, however, rocks, and I'm willing to pay for it (comes down to $2 a day if you don't have digital, less if you do- Hardly a prohibitive cost).

I make a prediction today- If you get "free" government internet, in 10 years it will cost on average way more than $2 a day for each account.

Forcing a company to compete with a "free" government service, with power limited only by their ability to tax, with no incentive AT ALL to service, is a scenario for the destruction of the networks that do exist. Mark my words- Do this, and 20 years from now you'll see a stagnant network that has improved not at all.

But wait! We'll sell advertising! We'll get Google to donate! It will be FREE! Ah yes, initially it will. Someday, however, Google or whoever will be finished with this sinkhole, and you'll find "emergency spending bills" being authorized to cover the costs. Then you'll get 20-30 no-show no work "network maintainence" jobs out of city hall.

I could go on but I'm tired, and I don't need to. Look around you at everything that your municipality either controls or provides. It is uniformly sad, dilapidated, slow, pitiful, and embarassing. They can't maintain a street. You want them to maintain a wireless network?

And all these people I hear worried that government is eavesdropping, controlling, censoring, etc...You all want a government controlling how and where and when you access the internet? What's to stop a municipality from running blocking software to screen out "objectional" websites? You get one bible-thumper in office and it will be "adios porno!", complete with well oiled speeches denouncing use of taxpayer money for porno bandwidth. And once that happens, once censorship is accepted a little bit, it's all over. The next step will be dirty words, "offensive" non-politically correct commentary (defined by whoever is in office at the time), etc etc etc. What about when a political adversary's website "accidentally" gets blocked the week of the election?


Governments... ALL governments, by virtue of what they are, seek to control, to the extent they're able, the flow of information. The Internet is proving to be a revolutionary tool for getting the truth out. Government would love to control the revolution, and to save $2 a day, $1 or less for narrowband, are there really people out there that are willing to let them do it?

Freedom is sold that cheaply?

Would you trust George W Bush with control over your internet connection? Would you believe him when he said he'd never allow anything to be censored today, tomorrow, 20 years from now?

Also- The internet is not "free" from a traffic carrying standpoint. At some time the value proposition for the national network, if the locals become province of government, will change. Not enough time to talk about that here, but remember NOTHING is free, and you get what you pay for.

Think long and hard. There are repercussions far beyond free access in Hamilton Park while walking the dog.


GWB

Natch to orange suit- Looked like a creamcicle. Saw him riding the grove st. up escalator. The white cane doesn't really go with the outfit.

GWB

Actually for comment from all-

Another night, another nasty accident- Corner of 8th and Monmouth. Car ran the 8th Street stop sign & caught the back of a car going down Monmouth, which caromed into the yard of the house on the corner.

Nobody badly hurt that I could see, and thankfully no one was standing on the corner.

Clearly, the guy that ran the sign is in the wrong, but I can hardly blame him- It's dark on that corner, and at night it's easy to miss the signs. Also, the "pattern" of stops vs. right of ways is random all over the area- You got to stop on 3rd, but 4th is smooth sailing, for example, then back to 5th, no stop on Monmouth.

Even during the day, when big vans/SUV's/ moving trucks park on corners, you can't see if there's a stop or not. I have this problem constantly (big trucks like corners- no parallel parking involved) and I am sure others do too.

Simple solution- Put some S T O P lettering and stripes leading up to the intersections painted on the roadway. Much, much harder to miss. The cost should be (relatively) minimal.

It will certainly save some damage and money wasted on responses (cops, fire, and EMT all showed) and may save a life. Frankly, it's a matter of time before someone is killed- These accidents tend to be hood-on-door.

I can't see it costing too much- Paint & the equipment to apply it, and a few guys. Every signed intersection downtown should get it.



GWB

I liked this stat- Puts light on the repeated administation and PD statement that "all urban areas are experiencing a surge in crime"

"According to F.B.I. statistics compiled for the first six months of 2005, violent crime rose 10 percent in the city ? including increases in robbery, burglary and larceny. By way of comparison, Newark's violent crime rate dropped 4 percent in the same period"

Also- Touting the gun buyback- Anyone remember Healy saying, "it's largely symbolic and doesn't effect crime" or something to that effect? Now it's a big "initiative" to tout in the NYT.

More stats if anyone is interested. Will be interesting to see what the full year 05 numbers look like. I think we can all guess.

http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/2005prelim/table2.htm

http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/2005prelim/tables/05northeast.xls

http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/2005prelim/table4.htm#gl

http://jerseycity.areaconnect.com/cri ... ity&s1=NJ&c2=newark&s2=NJ

http://jerseycity.areaconnect.com/cri ... y&s1=NJ&c2=paterson&s2=NJ

http://jerseycity.areaconnect.com/cri ... ty&s1=NJ&c2=compton&s2=CA

http://jerseycity.areaconnect.com/cri ... y&s1=NJ&c2=new+york&s2=NY

http://jerseycity.areaconnect.com/cri ... s1=NJ&c2=Union+City&s2=NJ

http://jerseycity.areaconnect.com/cri ... ty&s1=NJ&c2=bayonne&s2=NJ

http://jerseycity.areaconnect.com/cri ... ty&s1=NJ&c2=hoboken&s2=NJ

http://jerseycity.areaconnect.com/cri ... &s1=NJ&c2=ELIZABETH&s2=NJ

http://jerseycity.areaconnect.com/cri ... ity&s1=NJ&c2=KEARNY&s2=NJ

http://www.state.nj.us/lps/njsp/info/stats.html#cit

GWB

Further investigation into the incident, not the group.

And as I said, I already know enough about the group, and their accusations to discount it utterly until I get some information from a reliable news source. I also don't want my name forwarded to the Commintern for future liquidation once the Worker's Paradise arrives. When that happens I'll carry my copy of the CM in my pocket just like everyone else :D

I'm not sure where it lead to, but I'm glad I've validated your belief in your own clairvoyance.

You derailed this by responding to my post, pointing out what kind of organization we were talking about here. I simply wanted that info out there so everyone would be better informed before coming to a conclusion. Apparently you would have preferred that the group not be scrutinized and instead be taken at face value. I can think of no other reason why you've responded so forcefully.

More information is good, don't you think?

GWB

"Phillipino hate" was not, clearly, a reference of hatred by "phillipinos". I was referring to the lack of hatred OF Filipinos.

You made the analogy and the intent was clear. You didn't make an analogy between whistleblowers at Enron and these youngsters. You made an analogy between the Jim Crow south and the JCPD. If you don't like the response, perhaps you should choose your analogies more carefully.

Philippines, Filipino. Maybe even Pilipino? A country, a person, a language. Would you forgive someone who called a Uzbek a Uzbekistani? Then extend the same courtesy to me.

I do find it interesting that not once does anyone refer to anyone involved, or even the groups involved, as "Filipino Americans". I assume that's what they are. Or maybe they're not.

Alan Alda is a member of the organization. The organization sent out the press release. You are on that organization's mailing list, so presumably you know what kind of organization it is. You forwarded the press release around without further investigation. You were not ignorant of the source, as you have cleared up. P1979 saw it on Indy Media and probably did not notice where it was from. You got it direct from the source.

So at least we know where everyone stands now. If indeed these kids were treated as they claim, heads should roll, endstop. But not based on an uncorroborated claim from some commie organization.

As far as speaking, no offense, but I'll pass. I won't even go as far as to say, Ms. JC, are you now, or have you ever been a member of the communist party? :)

Thanks

GWB

Yes, but JC said that he/she forwarded it around after getting it in email form, which has a larger potential for circulation than this messageboard.

On that note, I wonder exactly who emailed it to JC to begin with.

GWB

JC-

Like I said- Form your own opinion. I provided in my post more information on the organization this young man is a member of. That organization ALSO is the one who wrote and disseminated the press release.

There has been absolutely no reportage by anyone anywhere outside of the press release from this organization.

I don't have to "acknowledge" that 3 men went to a precinct and somehow ended up in jail. Everything anyone knows about this case comes from a biased "press release" that you blindly circulated without even looking into it. You say now that you're interested in learning more, but you circulated this with the intention of "getting some answers".

You are the one who is jumping to conclusions.

And if you want to compare the NAACP with a communist organization, that's your choice.

Let me ask you this: Every time some outfit accuses a cop of doing something wrong, is the police department compelled to spend resources on opening a full-blown investigation?

Look at the "quote" from the offended individual. It sounds like it was lifted right out of a party pamplet of talking points. Does that sound natural to you, or what a normal person would say after an incident like this, or does it sound like a "message moment"?

Cops can be clowns like anyone else, but give me a break. Batons? Are you sure they didn't whip out water cannons and dogs too?

If this happened like these guys say it did, it is a career-ender for the officers involved. Why, because of that rampant phillipino hate that is flying around downtown?

And you should be ashamed of yourself for equating the experience of these folks to what African Americans had to live with under slavery and Jim Crow. There is no comparison. Period.


Thanks.

GWB

Anakbayan:

http://members.tripod.com/~chapelnet/anakbayan.html

http://www.geocities.com/ysaklan/

http://kilusan.net/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=338 (nice commie graphics here)

It's some sort of communist (claims socialist, but what's with all the Commintern love) youth group.

Does that mean he didn't have a rough night? No, but he's apparently not some political innocent with no agenda.

The cops are the ones who got hoodwinked here, in my opinion. Ya'll form your own.

I guess the giveaway was how fast they were able to get a press release out. Shame on those who blindly forward this stuff out without further investigating the sources.

Thanks

GWB

How's the new screen name working out Pisces1979?

Drama! Love it. This thread has the potential to be as good as the Dan Wrieden thread.

Please keep it alive.

Thanks

GWB

Furry-

Did they mention who is picking up the freight for that handler? If it's out of Healy's pocket or from his party, fine. But if it's tax money, I find it a bit excessive.

That's some serious cake for someone to dress the guy. It's also money being spent to "spin" him, which seems like a party job rather than a government job.

Next time any of you homeowners cut a check for your property taxes, remember you did your part to make sure Healy's belt matched his shoes.

This is assuming it's being paid with city money. If it is, it's a perfect example of how utterly out of touch politicians are. He's not the President. He's not the Governor. He's a Mayor in a city that isn't exactly flush with cash. Think of what $76,000 would do to, oh, I don't know, fix the collapsing walkway at the waterfront that's been busted for 3 years now.

GWB

Thank GOD this thread was resurrected.

INCOMING DRAMA!