Re: Am you legally justified in killing a passenger who refuses toturn off their cell phone?

[bill]

On Mon, 23 Jan 2012 04:39:16 -0800, Gunner Asch wrote:


>>Churchill ordered the troops deployed, no artillery was used and the
>>house burned to the ground and two bodies were found in the smoking
>>rubble.
>>
>><Cut and paste propaganda snipped to preserve sanity.>
>
>
> Then you can provide those claimed mistakes were actually erronious and
> not actually mistakes at all...but your "source" was trying to cover up
> the fact that armed citizens were involved in helping the police.
>
> Trot them out if you would be so kind.
>
> Ill be waiting with amused interest.

I already gave it, and it's the same book that Wikipedia gives.

The Battle of Stepney, Colin Rogers

Please note that on the page

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Sidney_street_detectives.jpg

There's a picture of the house on fire.

No sign of artillery damage at all...

--
William Black

Free men have open minds
If you want loyalty, buy a dog...

[bill]

On Mon, 23 Jan 2012 04:34:25 -0800, Gunner Asch wrote:

> On Mon, 23 Jan 2012 08:51:36 +0000 (UTC), bill >
> wrote:
>
>>On Sun, 22 Jan 2012 15:09:37 -0800, Gunner Asch wrote:
>>
>>> On Sun, 22 Jan 2012 16:45:46 +0000 (UTC), bill >
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Sat, 21 Jan 2012 16:34:20 -0800, Gunner Asch wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Sat, 21 Jan 2012 17:06:50 +0000 (UTC), bill
>>>>> > wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>On Sat, 21 Jan 2012 01:20:29 -0800, Gunner Asch wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>First of all any story in the Sun needs to betaken with a very large
>>>>pinch of salt, and secondly any brief look at just about any UK
>>>>police web site will tell you that the H&K weapons are not capable of
>>>>fully automatic fire.
>>>
>>> So they are simply large capacity assault weapons?
>>
>>Can you define 'assault weapon' for me please?
>>
>>As far as I'm a ware it's a US propaganda term for 'big scary black
>>gun'.
>>
>>So the police
>>> themselves are lying about carrying machine guns?
>>
>>I very much doubt an policeman ever called these weapons 'machine guns'.
>>
>>I also doubt you or I would either.
>
>
> Odd that I keep finding countless references to the British Police
> carrying machine guns...
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heckler_%26_Koch_G36

The British police use the special version, developed I understand for
an FBI requirement, for a self loading non fully automatic capable
version.




--
William Black

Free men have open minds
If you want loyalty, buy a dog...

[David Dyer-Bennet]

David Monaghan > writes:

> On Fri, 20 Jan 2012 13:51:04 -0800, DevilsPGD
> > wrote:
>
>>In message > someone claiming
>>to be David Monaghan > typed:
>>
>>>If you eliminated most of the UK murders on the basis they happened to
>>>people who don't count, the UK rate would be lower, too.
>>
>>The point isn't eliminating people that don't count, but rather,
>>eliminating people who voluntarily place themselves in harm's way.
>
> The law doesn't see it that way and neither do statisticians.

But in deciding where to live to be reasonably safe, it seems like it
might be relevant. Most murders aren't in fact random.
--
David Dyer-Bennet, ; http://dd-b.net/
Snapshots: http://dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/data/
Photos: http://dd-b.net/photography/gallery/
Dragaera: http://dragaera.info

[DevilsPGD[_2_]]

In message > someone claiming to be bill
> typed:

>Can you define 'assault weapon' for me please?
>
>As far as I'm a ware it's a US propaganda term for 'big scary black gun'.

That seems to be the case. In Canada it was recently decided that a
kinda-sorta-looks-like-an-AK47 gun should be illegal:

http://www.montrealgazette.com/news/RCMP+seizing+more+guns+registry+death+door/5960586/story.html

Smart!

--
It's always darkest before dawn. So if you're going to
steal your neighbor's newspaper, that's the time to do it.

[Gunner Asch[_2_]]

On Mon, 23 Jan 2012 16:06:06 +0000 (UTC), bill >
wrote:

>>
>> Then you can provide those claimed mistakes were actually erronious and
>> not actually mistakes at all...but your "source" was trying to cover up
>> the fact that armed citizens were involved in helping the police.
>>
>> Trot them out if you would be so kind.
>>
>> Ill be waiting with amused interest.
>
>I already gave it, and it's the same book that Wikipedia gives.
>
>The Battle of Stepney, Colin Rogers
>
>Please note that on the page
>
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Sidney_street_detectives.jpg
>
>There's a picture of the house on fire.
>
>No sign of artillery damage at all...

Odd..I cant see if there is any or not. Small bore arty was common in
1911 Under 1" was very common

Which reminds me...you claimed they were shooting .380s

7.65 mm Browning (.32 ACP) from the listing of the Dreyse used in the
various shootings

Now Im rather curious....how you went from the Tottenham Outrage in
1909..to this event in 1911.

Did you by any chance have a stroke?


Which reminds me...

http://web.archive.org/web/20091028041145/http://www.geocities.com/summerhillroad2002/tottenham_outrage1909.htm

"In addition to the two deaths, there was a large number of injuries to
both the police and civilians. At the time of the 'Outrage' there was
not the prohibition of today on private firearm possession. Some of the
participants in the chase carried guns and had probably served in the
Army, both here and overseas, keeping their weapons as souvenirs.The
official reports lists 7 wounded Police Officers and 17 wounded
civilians."

http://pfoa.co.uk/193/the-tottenham-outrage

Constables Bond and Fraiser jumped through one of the windows of the
police station into Chestnut Road and other officers, who were aroused
from sleep, hastily put on whatever clothing immediately came to hand
and ran out the front entrance to join the hue and cry. When the robbers
turned and fired at them, Bond used a ‘small revolver’ he had borrowed
from a passer-by to fire four shots in return but they all missed.
.......

According to Superintendent Jenkins: ‘The chase which had now become
most desperate was continued with splendid determination. The murderers
proceeded over the footbridge spanning the Great Eastern Railway, then
in a north easterly direction to the west bank of the River Lea.
Following this course to Chalk Bridge which spans the river just beyond
the rifle butts, thence onto the Mill Stream Bridge where they held the
crowd at bay for a considerable time’. It was here that Cyril Burgess
was hit in the ankle. Several men who had been duck shooting on
Tottenham Marshes and nearby Banbury Reservoir had joined in the chase
and they used their shotguns to return fire. It was here that Constable
Nicod decided that enough was enough. He too borrowed what Jenkins
described as a ‘revolver’ from someone in the crowd and went forward.
Kneeling down on the bank of the river he took aim and squeezed the
trigger. Nothing happened. Although described as a ‘revolver’ it may
well have been that it was a self-loading pistol and that the officer
was unfamiliar with how it worked. In any event he beat a hasty retreat
and both Hefeld and Lepidus fired at him. He was hit twice but
subsequently recovered from his wounds."

Odd..the last was from the Police Firearms Officers Association wasnt
it?

<VBG>

So far..you are loosing..and badly


Oh...as a side note..the other pistol appears to be a Bergman, both from
discription OF the maker and from photos..
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bergmann_1896

Cartridge

5mm Bergmann (nº 2)
6.5mm Bergmann (nº 3)
8x22mm Bergmann (nº 4)


5 round FIXED magazine

Gunner

One could not be a successful Leftwinger without realizing that,
in contrast to the popular conception supported by newspapers
and mothers of Leftwingers, a goodly number of Leftwingers are
not only narrow-minded and dull, but also just stupid.
Gunner Asch

[Gunner Asch[_2_]]

On Mon, 23 Jan 2012 16:09:52 +0000 (UTC), bill >
wrote:

>On Mon, 23 Jan 2012 04:34:25 -0800, Gunner Asch wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 23 Jan 2012 08:51:36 +0000 (UTC), bill >
>> wrote:
>>
>>>On Sun, 22 Jan 2012 15:09:37 -0800, Gunner Asch wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Sun, 22 Jan 2012 16:45:46 +0000 (UTC), bill >
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>On Sat, 21 Jan 2012 16:34:20 -0800, Gunner Asch wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Sat, 21 Jan 2012 17:06:50 +0000 (UTC), bill
>>>>>> > wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>On Sat, 21 Jan 2012 01:20:29 -0800, Gunner Asch wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>First of all any story in the Sun needs to betaken with a very large
>>>>>pinch of salt, and secondly any brief look at just about any UK
>>>>>police web site will tell you that the H&K weapons are not capable of
>>>>>fully automatic fire.
>>>>
>>>> So they are simply large capacity assault weapons?
>>>
>>>Can you define 'assault weapon' for me please?
>>>
>>>As far as I'm a ware it's a US propaganda term for 'big scary black
>>>gun'.
>>>
>>>So the police
>>>> themselves are lying about carrying machine guns?
>>>
>>>I very much doubt an policeman ever called these weapons 'machine guns'.
>>>
>>>I also doubt you or I would either.
>>
>>
>> Odd that I keep finding countless references to the British Police
>> carrying machine guns...
>>
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heckler_%26_Koch_G36
>
>The British police use the special version, developed I understand for
>an FBI requirement, for a self loading non fully automatic capable
>version.

Except of course for the Fully Automatic 36C which I also posted links
to.

The Metro actually...

<VBG>

Gunner

One could not be a successful Leftwinger without realizing that,
in contrast to the popular conception supported by newspapers
and mothers of Leftwingers, a goodly number of Leftwingers are
not only narrow-minded and dull, but also just stupid.
Gunner Asch

[SaPeIsMa]

"Gunner Asch" > wrote in message
...
> On Thu, 19 Jan 2012 00:14:21 -0500, "Scout"
> > wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>"Gunner Asch" > wrote in message
...
>>> On Wed, 18 Jan 2012 17:23:47 -0600, Jim Logajan >
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>"Charles Dickey" > wrote:
>>>>> I did some traveling lately and noted that some passengers who
>>>>> were told to turn off their phones, did so, and as soon as the
>>>>> stewardess passed on, they turned them right back on. This is a
>>>>> safety precaution for all, and the deliberate refusal for the
>>>>> passengers to comply could have a fatal result for me.
>>>>> If I kill the asshole because I fear for my life, will this be
>>>>> considered an act of self defense?
>>>>>
>>>>> Discuss.
>>>>
>>>>You are defenseless thanks to TSA, while the other person has a cell
>>>>phone
>>>>to bash your head in (or place near your head, causing instant death due
>>>>to
>>>>cancer.) They would then escape conviction because it is always
>>>>justified
>>>>to kill trolls.
>>>
>>> "instant death due to cancer"
>>>
>>> Ooookay.......
>>
>>Well, the phone is black...which means it's an assault phone and thus
>>instant death to anything around it per the liberals.
>>
> And if its got autodial..its an automatic weapon!!!!
>

My phone does
It even has a voice-activated trigg.. er dialer.
Does that mean I have to pay $200 ro the BAT****Ers and get permission from
my local police chief to own it ?

[SaPeIsMa]

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
> SaPeIsMa writes:
>
>> You're strapped into a metal cylinder with the doors closed
>> Where exactly do you imagine you can do a "feasible retreat" ?
>
> It doesn't matter. The criterion of immediate fear or death or bodily harm
> is
> not satisfied.

I don't know about you, but being strapped into a metal tube that can crash
and burn, and over which you have ABSOLUTELY NO CONTROl, is not exactly
free of the fear of immediate death and or bodily harm by any count
Why do you think that white-knuckle syndrome os so prevalent during takeoffs
and landings ?

:-)

[SaPeIsMa]

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
> RD Sandman > writes:
>
>> The definition is a "reasonable person". And, yes, from flight cabin
>> announcements over the years, a goodly number of normally "reasonable"
>> passengers could very well have that fear.
>
> What part of the announcements would instill such an irrational fear?

Let's see
THe dropping oxygen masks
The proper position for a crash landing
THe use of a seat cushion as a floatation device

[SaPeIsMa]

"Shall not be infringed" > wrote in message
...
> On Jan 22, 2:08 am, "max headroom" > wrote:
>> "Shall not be infringed" > wrote in
>> ...
>>
>> > > But... what if they're actually calling the phone connected to a bad
>> > > thing in their check bag?
>> > That happens so often that it is probably on the very edge of
>> > everyone's
>> > mind as they start that take off roll down the runway. ;)
>>
>> [snip]
>>
>> I'm just looking fore reason's for Charles to legally shoot the
>> passenger on the phone.
>> --------------------------------------
>>
>> Some people just need killing.
>>
>> Obnoxious, loud-mouth cell phone users on airplanes come to mind....
>
> What about obnoxious, loud-mouthed cell phone users in restaurants?
>
> Or do you think that's too harsh?

Chicken bones shoved sideways down their throat is far more appropriate

[bill]

On Mon, 23 Jan 2012 17:25:02 -0800, Gunner Asch wrote:

> On Mon, 23 Jan 2012 16:09:52 +0000 (UTC), bill >
> wrote:
>
>>On Mon, 23 Jan 2012 04:34:25 -0800, Gunner Asch wrote:
>>
>>> On Mon, 23 Jan 2012 08:51:36 +0000 (UTC), bill >
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Sun, 22 Jan 2012 15:09:37 -0800, Gunner Asch wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Sun, 22 Jan 2012 16:45:46 +0000 (UTC), bill
>>>>> > wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>On Sat, 21 Jan 2012 16:34:20 -0800, Gunner Asch wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Sat, 21 Jan 2012 17:06:50 +0000 (UTC), bill
>>>>>>> > wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>On Sat, 21 Jan 2012 01:20:29 -0800, Gunner Asch wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>First of all any story in the Sun needs to betaken with a very large
>>>>>>pinch of salt, and secondly any brief look at just about any UK
>>>>>>police web site will tell you that the H&K weapons are not capable
>>>>>>of fully automatic fire.
>>>>>
>>>>> So they are simply large capacity assault weapons?
>>>>
>>>>Can you define 'assault weapon' for me please?
>>>>
>>>>As far as I'm a ware it's a US propaganda term for 'big scary black
>>>>gun'.
>>>>
>>>>So the police
>>>>> themselves are lying about carrying machine guns?
>>>>
>>>>I very much doubt an policeman ever called these weapons 'machine
>>>>guns'.
>>>>
>>>>I also doubt you or I would either.
>>>
>>>
>>> Odd that I keep finding countless references to the British Police
>>> carrying machine guns...
>>>
>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heckler_%26_Koch_G36
>>
>>The British police use the special version, developed I understand for
>>an FBI requirement, for a self loading non fully automatic capable
>>version.
>
> Except of course for the Fully Automatic 36C which I also posted links
> to.
>

I noticed.

I don't for one moment imagine you have a primary sourcerather than athe
yellow press as a source do you?

Quite seriously I would like one because I could then make some quite
serious trouble for the 'met' when I get back.

But I imagine all you've actually got is a gutter journalist with a copy
of 'Small Arms of the World' and a blurry photograph.

--
William Black

Free men have open minds
If you want loyalty, buy a dog...

[bill]

On Mon, 23 Jan 2012 17:23:43 -0800, Gunner Asch wrote:

> On Mon, 23 Jan 2012 16:06:06 +0000 (UTC), bill >
> wrote:
>
>
>>> Then you can provide those claimed mistakes were actually erronious
>>> and not actually mistakes at all...but your "source" was trying to
>>> cover up the fact that armed citizens were involved in helping the
>>> police.
>>>
>>> Trot them out if you would be so kind.
>>>
>>> Ill be waiting with amused interest.
>>
>>I already gave it, and it's the same book that Wikipedia gives.
>>
>>The Battle of Stepney, Colin Rogers
>>
>>Please note that on the page
>>
>>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Sidney_street_detectives.jpg
>>
>>There's a picture of the house on fire.
>>
>>No sign of artillery damage at all...
>
> Odd..I cant see if there is any or not. Small bore arty was common in
> 1911 Under 1" was very common

No it wasn't, not in UK domestic service anyway.

There may have been the odd 'pom pom' about but that wouldn't have been
available in London.


> Which reminds me...you claimed they were shooting .380s


Nope.

Re-read.

7.65 Mauser, a bottle neck pistol cartridge.


--
William Black

Free men have open minds
If you want loyalty, buy a dog...

[Mxsmanic]

SaPeIsMa writes:

> Let's see
> THe dropping oxygen masks
> The proper position for a crash landing
> THe use of a seat cushion as a floatation device

None of this has anything to do with electronic devices.

Airline crews never, ever say that an electronic device will cause a crash or
accident. Not only because it's not true, but also because the policy of
airlines is to never, ever mention accidents or crashes if there's any way to
avoid it.

The stuff about masks and so on is required by law, so they have to talk about
it.

[Mxsmanic]

SaPeIsMa writes:

> I don't know about you, but being strapped into a metal tube that can crash
> and burn, and over which you have ABSOLUTELY NO CONTROl, is not exactly
> free of the fear of immediate death and or bodily harm by any count
> Why do you think that white-knuckle syndrome os so prevalent during takeoffs
> and landings ?

Maybe, but what does this have to do with cell phones? Cell phones don't cause
crashes.

[SaPeIsMa]

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
> SaPeIsMa writes:
>
>> I don't know about you, but being strapped into a metal tube that can
>> crash
>> and burn, and over which you have ABSOLUTELY NO CONTROl, is not exactly
>> free of the fear of immediate death and or bodily harm by any count
>> Why do you think that white-knuckle syndrome os so prevalent during
>> takeoffs
>> and landings ?
>
> Maybe, but what does this have to do with cell phones? Cell phones don't
> cause
> crashes.

Never claimed they did
Read why I originally wrote instead of quoting me out of context

[SaPeIsMa]

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
> SaPeIsMa writes:
>
>> Let's see
>> THe dropping oxygen masks
>> The proper position for a crash landing
>> THe use of a seat cushion as a floatation device
>
> None of this has anything to do with electronic devices.
>
> Airline crews never, ever say that an electronic device will cause a crash
> or
> accident. Not only because it's not true, but also because the policy of
> airlines is to never, ever mention accidents or crashes if there's any way
> to
> avoid it.
>
> The stuff about masks and so on is required by law, so they have to talk
> about
> it.

Maybe you should stop cutting text and destroying context before you respond

[David Dyer-Bennet]

"SaPeIsMa" > writes:

> "Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
> ...
>> SaPeIsMa writes:
>>
>>> You're strapped into a metal cylinder with the doors closed
>>> Where exactly do you imagine you can do a "feasible retreat" ?
>>
>> It doesn't matter. The criterion of immediate fear or death or
>> bodily harm is
>> not satisfied.
>
> I don't know about you, but being strapped into a metal tube that can
> crash and burn, and over which you have ABSOLUTELY NO CONTROl, is not
> exactly free of the fear of immediate death and or bodily harm by any
> count
> Why do you think that white-knuckle syndrome os so prevalent during
> takeoffs and landings ?
>
> :-)

Not reasonable in the legal sense, though; the actual odds of crashing
and burning are trivial.

I've heard other people talk about this "no control" issue, but I just
fail to get it. I don't *want* to be in control of the airplane; I'm
not the trained pilot.

--
David Dyer-Bennet, ; http://dd-b.net/
Snapshots: http://dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/data/
Photos: http://dd-b.net/photography/gallery/
Dragaera: http://dragaera.info

[SaPeIsMa]

"David Dyer-Bennet" > wrote in message
...
> "SaPeIsMa" > writes:
>
>> "Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> SaPeIsMa writes:
>>>
>>>> You're strapped into a metal cylinder with the doors closed
>>>> Where exactly do you imagine you can do a "feasible retreat" ?
>>>
>>> It doesn't matter. The criterion of immediate fear or death or
>>> bodily harm is
>>> not satisfied.
>>
>> I don't know about you, but being strapped into a metal tube that can
>> crash and burn, and over which you have ABSOLUTELY NO CONTROl, is not
>> exactly free of the fear of immediate death and or bodily harm by any
>> count
>> Why do you think that white-knuckle syndrome os so prevalent during
>> takeoffs and landings ?
>>
>> :-)
>
> Not reasonable in the legal sense, though; the actual odds of crashing
> and burning are trivial.
>

People who are afraid are not necessarily rational or "reasonable" about it.

> I've heard other people talk about this "no control" issue, but I just
> fail to get it. I don't *want* to be in control of the airplane; I'm
> not the trained pilot.
>

What you may want or not want has nothing to do with it.
You need to put yourself in the shoes of the person in fear.
Your view counts for nothing in their universe.

[David Dyer-Bennet]

"SaPeIsMa" > writes:

> "David Dyer-Bennet" > wrote in message
> ...
>> "SaPeIsMa" > writes:
>>
>>> "Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>> SaPeIsMa writes:
>>>>
>>>>> You're strapped into a metal cylinder with the doors closed
>>>>> Where exactly do you imagine you can do a "feasible retreat" ?
>>>>
>>>> It doesn't matter. The criterion of immediate fear or death or
>>>> bodily harm is
>>>> not satisfied.
>>>
>>> I don't know about you, but being strapped into a metal tube that can
>>> crash and burn, and over which you have ABSOLUTELY NO CONTROl, is not
>>> exactly free of the fear of immediate death and or bodily harm by any
>>> count
>>> Why do you think that white-knuckle syndrome os so prevalent during
>>> takeoffs and landings ?
>>>
>>> :-)
>>
>> Not reasonable in the legal sense, though; the actual odds of crashing
>> and burning are trivial.
>>
>
> People who are afraid are not necessarily rational or "reasonable" about it.

But the legal right to use deadly force IS conditioned on your fear
being both immediate and "reasonable", which is where this discussion
began.

>> I've heard other people talk about this "no control" issue, but I just
>> fail to get it. I don't *want* to be in control of the airplane; I'm
>> not the trained pilot.
>
> What you may want or not want has nothing to do with it.
> You need to put yourself in the shoes of the person in fear.
> Your view counts for nothing in their universe.

Wrong; I might be on the jury.
--
David Dyer-Bennet, ; http://dd-b.net/
Snapshots: http://dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/data/
Photos: http://dd-b.net/photography/gallery/
Dragaera: http://dragaera.info

[RD Sandman]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> SaPeIsMa writes:
>
>> Let's see
>> THe dropping oxygen masks
>> The proper position for a crash landing
>> THe use of a seat cushion as a floatation device
>
> None of this has anything to do with electronic devices.

It could (in theory) and over the years passengers have had it drummed
into them that electronic devices could screw up cockpit instrumentation.

> Airline crews never, ever say that an electronic device will cause a
> crash or accident.

Correct.....they have said that it may cause false readings on cockpit
instrumentation.

Not only because it's not true, but also because
> the policy of airlines is to never, ever mention accidents or crashes
> if there's any way to avoid it.
>
> The stuff about masks and so on is required by law, so they have to
> talk about it.
>



--
It's impossible to defeat an ignorant man in argument.

William G McAdoo


Sleep well, tonight.....

RD (The Sandman)

[RD Sandman]

"SaPeIsMa" > wrote in
:

>
> "Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
> ...
>> SaPeIsMa writes:
>>
>>> You're strapped into a metal cylinder with the doors closed
>>> Where exactly do you imagine you can do a "feasible retreat" ?
>>
>> It doesn't matter. The criterion of immediate fear or death or bodily
>> harm is
>> not satisfied.
>
> I don't know about you, but being strapped into a metal tube that can
> crash and burn, and over which you have ABSOLUTELY NO CONTROl, is not
> exactly free of the fear of immediate death and or bodily harm by any
> count Why do you think that white-knuckle syndrome os so prevalent
> during takeoffs and landings ?
>
> :-)
>
>
>

For when the AC goes around those corners? ;)

--
It's impossible to defeat an ignorant man in argument.

William G McAdoo


Sleep well, tonight.....

RD (The Sandman)

[SaPeIsMa]

"David Dyer-Bennet" > wrote in message
...
> "SaPeIsMa" > writes:
>
>> "David Dyer-Bennet" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> "SaPeIsMa" > writes:
>>>
>>>> "Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
>>>> ...
>>>>> SaPeIsMa writes:
>>>>>
>>>>>> You're strapped into a metal cylinder with the doors closed
>>>>>> Where exactly do you imagine you can do a "feasible retreat" ?
>>>>>
>>>>> It doesn't matter. The criterion of immediate fear or death or
>>>>> bodily harm is
>>>>> not satisfied.
>>>>
>>>> I don't know about you, but being strapped into a metal tube that can
>>>> crash and burn, and over which you have ABSOLUTELY NO CONTROl, is not
>>>> exactly free of the fear of immediate death and or bodily harm by any
>>>> count
>>>> Why do you think that white-knuckle syndrome os so prevalent during
>>>> takeoffs and landings ?
>>>>
>>>> :-)
>>>
>>> Not reasonable in the legal sense, though; the actual odds of crashing
>>> and burning are trivial.
>>>
>>
>> People who are afraid are not necessarily rational or "reasonable" about
>> it.
>
> But the legal right to use deadly force IS conditioned on your fear
> being both immediate and "reasonable", which is where this discussion
> began.
>

Funny,
But there's nothing in the Minnesota statutes about "reasonable"
You just have to be in "imminent fear"
And that is not "reasonable fear"


>>> I've heard other people talk about this "no control" issue, but I just
>>> fail to get it. I don't *want* to be in control of the airplane; I'm
>>> not the trained pilot.
>>
>> What you may want or not want has nothing to do with it.
>> You need to put yourself in the shoes of the person in fear.
>> Your view counts for nothing in their universe.
>
> Wrong; I might be on the jury.
>

IN which case, you just demonstrated prejudice and should be disqualified

[Mxsmanic]

RD Sandman > writes:

> It could (in theory) and over the years passengers have had it drummed
> into them that electronic devices could screw up cockpit instrumentation.

Not by airline crews, although it is a persistent urban legend (one that is
occasionally repeated to cabin crews in their training, in fact).

> Correct.....they have said that it may cause false readings on cockpit
> instrumentation.

I haven't even heard them say that, but I suppose it might be said
occasionally.

[Mxsmanic]

SaPeIsMa writes:

> But there's nothing in the Minnesota statutes about "reasonable"
> You just have to be in "imminent fear"
> And that is not "reasonable fear"

Rationality is implicit. The law would be useless if irrational behavior were
assumed or permitted. Just because "reasonable" doesn't occur in the text
doesn't mean that "unreasonable" is acceptable. The latter would allow for any
retaliation to be excused in any situation, which obviously is useless.

[Shall not be infringed]

On Jan 23, 11:30*pm, "SaPeIsMa" > wrote:
> "Shall not be infringed" > wrote in ...
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jan 22, 2:08 am, "max headroom" > wrote:
> >> "Shall not be infringed" > wrote in
> >> ...
>
> >> > > But... what if they're actually calling the phone connected to a bad
> >> > > thing in their check bag?
> >> > That happens so often that it is probably on the very edge of
> >> > everyone's
> >> > mind as they start that take off roll down the runway. ;)
>
> >> [snip]
>
> >> I'm just looking fore reason's for Charles to legally shoot the
> >> passenger on the phone.
> >> --------------------------------------
>
> >> Some people just need killing.
>
> >> Obnoxious, loud-mouth cell phone users on airplanes come to mind....
>
> > What about obnoxious, loud-mouthed cell phone users in restaurants?
>
> > Or do you think that's too harsh?
>
> Chicken bones shoved sideways down their throat is far more appropriate

Ah! The Liz Taylor technique.

[Scout]

"SaPeIsMa" > wrote in message
...
>
> "David Dyer-Bennet" > wrote in message
> ...
>> "SaPeIsMa" > writes:
>>
>>> "David Dyer-Bennet" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>> "SaPeIsMa" > writes:
>>>>
>>>>> "Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
>>>>> ...
>>>>>> SaPeIsMa writes:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> You're strapped into a metal cylinder with the doors closed
>>>>>>> Where exactly do you imagine you can do a "feasible retreat" ?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It doesn't matter. The criterion of immediate fear or death or
>>>>>> bodily harm is
>>>>>> not satisfied.
>>>>>
>>>>> I don't know about you, but being strapped into a metal tube that can
>>>>> crash and burn, and over which you have ABSOLUTELY NO CONTROl, is not
>>>>> exactly free of the fear of immediate death and or bodily harm by any
>>>>> count
>>>>> Why do you think that white-knuckle syndrome os so prevalent during
>>>>> takeoffs and landings ?
>>>>>
>>>>> :-)
>>>>
>>>> Not reasonable in the legal sense, though; the actual odds of crashing
>>>> and burning are trivial.
>>>>
>>>
>>> People who are afraid are not necessarily rational or "reasonable" about
>>> it.
>>
>> But the legal right to use deadly force IS conditioned on your fear
>> being both immediate and "reasonable", which is where this discussion
>> began.
>>
>
> Funny,
> But there's nothing in the Minnesota statutes about "reasonable"
> You just have to be in "imminent fear"
> And that is not "reasonable fear"

609.065 JUSTIFIABLE TAKING OF LIFE.

The intentional taking of the life of another is not authorized by section
609.06, except when necessary in resisting or preventing an offense which
the actor REASONABLY believes exposes the actor or another to great bodily
harm or death, or preventing the commission of a felony in the actor's place
of abode.
(emphasis added)

https://www.revisor.mn.gov/statutes/?id=609.065

Next.

[Gunner Asch[_2_]]

On Tue, 24 Jan 2012 13:39:03 -0600, David Dyer-Bennet >
wrote:

>>>
>>
>> People who are afraid are not necessarily rational or "reasonable" about it.
>
>But the legal right to use deadly force IS conditioned on your fear
>being both immediate and "reasonable", which is where this discussion
>began.

Fear? Can you provide cites to the "fear" of which you blither?

Gunner

One could not be a successful Leftwinger without realizing that,
in contrast to the popular conception supported by newspapers
and mothers of Leftwingers, a goodly number of Leftwingers are
not only narrow-minded and dull, but also just stupid.
Gunner Asch

[RD Sandman]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> RD Sandman > writes:
>
>> It could (in theory) and over the years passengers have had it
>> drummed into them that electronic devices could screw up cockpit
>> instrumentation.
>
> Not by airline crews,

Yes, it has been.

although it is a persistent urban legend (one
> that is occasionally repeated to cabin crews in their training, in
> fact).

This is true.

>> Correct.....they have said that it may cause false readings on
>> cockpit instrumentation.
>
> I haven't even heard them say that, but I suppose it might be said
> occasionally.
>



--
It's impossible to defeat an ignorant man in argument.

William G McAdoo


Sleep well, tonight.....

RD (The Sandman)

[Shall not be infringed]

On Jan 25, 1:44*pm, RD Sandman >
wrote:
> Mxsmanic > wrote :
>
> > RD Sandman > writes:
>
> >> It could (in theory) and over the years passengers have had it
> >> drummed into them that electronic devices could screw up cockpit
> >> instrumentation.
>
> > Not by airline crews,
>
> Yes, it has been.
>
> *although it is a persistent urban legend (one
>
> > that is occasionally repeated to cabin crews in their training, in
> > fact).
>
> This is true.

Electromagnetic compatibility.

[Shall not be infringed]

On Jan 24, 11:34*pm, Gunner Asch > wrote:
> On Tue, 24 Jan 2012 13:39:03 -0600, David Dyer-Bennet >
> wrote:
>
>
>
> >> People who are afraid are not necessarily rational or "reasonable" about it.
>
> >But the legal right to use deadly force IS conditioned on your fear
> >being both immediate and "reasonable", which is where this discussion
> >began.
>
> Fear? *Can *you provide cites to the "fear" of which you blither?

Fear is like pain. There is no way to measure it. You either say you
have it or you say you don't.

[Gunner Asch[_2_]]

On Wed, 25 Jan 2012 16:53:24 -0800 (PST), Shall not be infringed
> wrote:

>On Jan 24, 11:34*pm, Gunner Asch > wrote:
>> On Tue, 24 Jan 2012 13:39:03 -0600, David Dyer-Bennet >
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> >> People who are afraid are not necessarily rational or "reasonable" about it.
>>
>> >But the legal right to use deadly force IS conditioned on your fear
>> >being both immediate and "reasonable", which is where this discussion
>> >began.
>>
>> Fear? *Can *you provide cites to the "fear" of which you blither?
>
>Fear is like pain. There is no way to measure it. You either say you
>have it or you say you don't.

Yes of course. Now Californias law makes no mention of fear whatsoever.


"reasonable cause to believe that your life or the life of another is in
immediate danger"

No fear is required.

Gunner

One could not be a successful Leftwinger without realizing that,
in contrast to the popular conception supported by newspapers
and mothers of Leftwingers, a goodly number of Leftwingers are
not only narrow-minded and dull, but also just stupid.
Gunner Asch

[SaPeIsMa]

"Gunner Asch" > wrote in message
...
> On Wed, 25 Jan 2012 16:53:24 -0800 (PST), Shall not be infringed
> > wrote:
>
>>On Jan 24, 11:34 pm, Gunner Asch > wrote:
>>> On Tue, 24 Jan 2012 13:39:03 -0600, David Dyer-Bennet >
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> >> People who are afraid are not necessarily rational or "reasonable"
>>> >> about it.
>>>
>>> >But the legal right to use deadly force IS conditioned on your fear
>>> >being both immediate and "reasonable", which is where this discussion
>>> >began.
>>>
>>> Fear? Can you provide cites to the "fear" of which you blither?
>>
>>Fear is like pain. There is no way to measure it. You either say you
>>have it or you say you don't.
>
> Yes of course. Now Californias law makes no mention of fear whatsoever.
>
>
> "reasonable cause to believe that your life or the life of another is in
> immediate danger"
>
> No fear is required.
>

Agreed
But typically "fear of" is a huge factor.

[a[_3_]]

On Jan 25, 1:44*pm, RD Sandman >
wrote:
> Mxsmanic > wrote :
>
> > RD Sandman > writes:
>
> >> It could (in theory) and over the years passengers have had it
> >> drummed into them that electronic devices could screw up cockpit
> >> instrumentation.
>
> > Not by airline crews,
>
> Yes, it has been.
>
> *although it is a persistent urban legend (one
>
> > that is occasionally repeated to cabin crews in their training, in
> > fact).
>
> This is true.
>
> >> Correct.....they have said that it may cause false readings on
> >> cockpit instrumentation.
>
> > I haven't even heard them say that, but I suppose it might be said
> > occasionally.
>
> --
> It's impossible to defeat an ignorant man in argument.
>
> William G McAdoo
>
> Sleep well, tonight.....
>
> RD (The Sandman)

So here is an observation and a question,

The observation is, I fly under IFR quite a lot at altitudes lower
than 12,000 and commonly have smart phone usage and wireless lap top
usage in my SEL airplane and have not noticed any nav or com problems.
In that me and my px are using headsets the guy using his cell phone
takes off his headset so we can't hear him. So I offer no restrictions
to such use about the Mooney.

The question is, have any other pilots found interference from these
devices while in flight?

I've restricted this post to rec.aviation.piloting.

[Michael A. Terrell]

SaPeIsMa wrote:
>
> "Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
> ...
> > RD Sandman > writes:
> >
> >> The definition is a "reasonable person". And, yes, from flight cabin
> >> announcements over the years, a goodly number of normally "reasonable"
> >> passengers could very well have that fear.
> >
> > What part of the announcements would instill such an irrational fear?
>
> Let's see
> THe dropping oxygen masks
> The proper position for a crash landing
> THe use of a seat cushion as a floatation device

The serving of airline food.


--
You can't have a sense of humor, if you have no sense.

[Spehro Pefhany]

On Sun, 05 Feb 2012 23:25:28 -0500, the renowned "Michael A. Terrell"
> wrote:

>
>SaPeIsMa wrote:
>>
>> "Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> > RD Sandman > writes:
>> >
>> >> The definition is a "reasonable person". And, yes, from flight cabin
>> >> announcements over the years, a goodly number of normally "reasonable"
>> >> passengers could very well have that fear.
>> >
>> > What part of the announcements would instill such an irrational fear?
>>
>> Let's see
>> THe dropping oxygen masks
>> The proper position for a crash landing
>> THe use of a seat cushion as a floatation device
>
> The serving of airline food.

That's rare these days on domestic flights.

[SaPeIsMa]

"Michael A. Terrell" > wrote in message
m...
>
> SaPeIsMa wrote:
>>
>> "Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> > RD Sandman > writes:
>> >
>> >> The definition is a "reasonable person". And, yes, from flight cabin
>> >> announcements over the years, a goodly number of normally "reasonable"
>> >> passengers could very well have that fear.
>> >
>> > What part of the announcements would instill such an irrational fear?
>>
>> Let's see
>> THe dropping oxygen masks
>> The proper position for a crash landing
>> THe use of a seat cushion as a floatation device
>
> The serving of airline food.
>

What airline food ??

[RD Sandman]

"Michael A. Terrell" > wrote in
m:

>
> SaPeIsMa wrote:
>>
>> "Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> > RD Sandman > writes:
>> >
>> >> The definition is a "reasonable person". And, yes, from flight
>> >> cabin announcements over the years, a goodly number of normally
>> >> "reasonable" passengers could very well have that fear.
>> >
>> > What part of the announcements would instill such an irrational
>> > fear?
>>
>> Let's see
>> THe dropping oxygen masks
>> The proper position for a crash landing
>> THe use of a seat cushion as a floatation device
>
> The serving of airline food.

The peanuts used to be pretty good.

--
It's impossible to defeat an ignorant man in argument.

William G McAdoo


Sleep well, tonight.....

RD (The Sandman)

[Scout]

"RD Sandman" > wrote in message
...
> "Michael A. Terrell" > wrote in
> m:
>
>>
>> SaPeIsMa wrote:
>>>
>>> "Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>> > RD Sandman > writes:
>>> >
>>> >> The definition is a "reasonable person". And, yes, from flight
>>> >> cabin announcements over the years, a goodly number of normally
>>> >> "reasonable" passengers could very well have that fear.
>>> >
>>> > What part of the announcements would instill such an irrational
>>> > fear?
>>>
>>> Let's see
>>> THe dropping oxygen masks
>>> The proper position for a crash landing
>>> THe use of a seat cushion as a floatation device
>>
>> The serving of airline food.
>
> The peanuts used to be pretty good.

I always liked the almonds better.

[RD Sandman]

"Scout" > wrote in news:jgpnkj
:

>
>
> "RD Sandman" > wrote in message
> ...
>> "Michael A. Terrell" > wrote in
>> m:
>>
>>>
>>> SaPeIsMa wrote:
>>>>
>>>> "Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
>>>> ...
>>>> > RD Sandman > writes:
>>>> >
>>>> >> The definition is a "reasonable person". And, yes, from flight
>>>> >> cabin announcements over the years, a goodly number of normally
>>>> >> "reasonable" passengers could very well have that fear.
>>>> >
>>>> > What part of the announcements would instill such an irrational
>>>> > fear?
>>>>
>>>> Let's see
>>>> THe dropping oxygen masks
>>>> The proper position for a crash landing
>>>> THe use of a seat cushion as a floatation device
>>>
>>> The serving of airline food.
>>
>> The peanuts used to be pretty good.
>
> I always liked the almonds better.
>
>
>

You flew first class, I didn't....back then.

--
It's impossible to defeat an ignorant man in argument.

William G McAdoo


Sleep well, tonight.....

RD (The Sandman)

[Scout]

"RD Sandman" > wrote in message
...
> "Scout" > wrote in news:jgpnkj
> :
>
>>
>>
>> "RD Sandman" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> "Michael A. Terrell" > wrote in
>>> m:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> SaPeIsMa wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> "Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
>>>>> ...
>>>>> > RD Sandman > writes:
>>>>> >
>>>>> >> The definition is a "reasonable person". And, yes, from flight
>>>>> >> cabin announcements over the years, a goodly number of normally
>>>>> >> "reasonable" passengers could very well have that fear.
>>>>> >
>>>>> > What part of the announcements would instill such an irrational
>>>>> > fear?
>>>>>
>>>>> Let's see
>>>>> THe dropping oxygen masks
>>>>> The proper position for a crash landing
>>>>> THe use of a seat cushion as a floatation device
>>>>
>>>> The serving of airline food.
>>>
>>> The peanuts used to be pretty good.
>>
>> I always liked the almonds better.
>>
>>
>>
>
> You flew first class, I didn't....back then.

Nope, just economy. But you could still get the almonds.

[RD Sandman]

"Scout" > wrote in news:jgs5q1
:

>
>
> "RD Sandman" > wrote in message
> ...
>> "Scout" > wrote in
news:jgpnkj
>> :
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> "RD Sandman" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>> "Michael A. Terrell" > wrote in
>>>> m:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> SaPeIsMa wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
>>>>>> ...
>>>>>> > RD Sandman > writes:
>>>>>> >
>>>>>> >> The definition is a "reasonable person". And, yes, from flight
>>>>>> >> cabin announcements over the years, a goodly number of normally
>>>>>> >> "reasonable" passengers could very well have that fear.
>>>>>> >
>>>>>> > What part of the announcements would instill such an irrational
>>>>>> > fear?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Let's see
>>>>>> THe dropping oxygen masks
>>>>>> The proper position for a crash landing
>>>>>> THe use of a seat cushion as a floatation device
>>>>>
>>>>> The serving of airline food.
>>>>
>>>> The peanuts used to be pretty good.
>>>
>>> I always liked the almonds better.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>> You flew first class, I didn't....back then.
>
> Nope, just economy. But you could still get the almonds.

Damn, all I got were the peanuts......and free drinks. Oh, well, I
assume that makes up for the peanuts.

--
It's impossible to defeat an ignorant man in argument.

William G McAdoo


Sleep well, tonight.....

RD (The Sandman)

[David Dyer-Bennet]

"SaPeIsMa" > writes:

> "David Dyer-Bennet" > wrote in message
> ...
>> "SaPeIsMa" > writes:
>>
>>> "David Dyer-Bennet" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>> "SaPeIsMa" > writes:
>>>>
>>>>> "Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
>>>>> ...
>>>>>> SaPeIsMa writes:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> You're strapped into a metal cylinder with the doors closed
>>>>>>> Where exactly do you imagine you can do a "feasible retreat" ?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It doesn't matter. The criterion of immediate fear or death or
>>>>>> bodily harm is
>>>>>> not satisfied.
>>>>>
>>>>> I don't know about you, but being strapped into a metal tube that can
>>>>> crash and burn, and over which you have ABSOLUTELY NO CONTROl, is not
>>>>> exactly free of the fear of immediate death and or bodily harm by any
>>>>> count
>>>>> Why do you think that white-knuckle syndrome os so prevalent during
>>>>> takeoffs and landings ?
>>>>>
>>>>> :-)
>>>>
>>>> Not reasonable in the legal sense, though; the actual odds of crashing
>>>> and burning are trivial.
>>>>
>>>
>>> People who are afraid are not necessarily rational or "reasonable"
>>> about it.
>>
>> But the legal right to use deadly force IS conditioned on your fear
>> being both immediate and "reasonable", which is where this discussion
>> began.
>>
>
> Funny,
> But there's nothing in the Minnesota statutes about "reasonable"
> You just have to be in "imminent fear"
> And that is not "reasonable fear"

I believe that 'reasonable' is implicit in the entire body of the law,
though; you can't justify any random thing by claiming some convenient
fear.

I *know* that it was explicitly included in all the different materials
I've seen from different instructors for carry permit courses in the
state.

>>>> I've heard other people talk about this "no control" issue, but I just
>>>> fail to get it. I don't *want* to be in control of the airplane; I'm
>>>> not the trained pilot.
>>>
>>> What you may want or not want has nothing to do with it.
>>> You need to put yourself in the shoes of the person in fear.
>>> Your view counts for nothing in their universe.
>>
>> Wrong; I might be on the jury.
>
> IN which case, you just demonstrated prejudice and should be disqualified

And so must everybody else.
--
David Dyer-Bennet, ; http://dd-b.net/
Snapshots: http://dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/data/
Photos: http://dd-b.net/photography/gallery/
Dragaera: http://dragaera.info

[David Dyer-Bennet]

Gunner Asch > writes:

> On Tue, 24 Jan 2012 13:39:03 -0600, David Dyer-Bennet >
> wrote:
>
>>>>
>>>
>>> People who are afraid are not necessarily rational or "reasonable" about it.
>>
>>But the legal right to use deadly force IS conditioned on your fear
>>being both immediate and "reasonable", which is where this discussion
>>began.
>
> Fear? Can you provide cites to the "fear" of which you blither?

Already done by others.

It's in the statutes, and it's in the carry permit course materials
(those aren't state prepared, so that's not definitive about what the
law actually is, but the ones I used were extensivly vetted by multiple
expert lawyers).
--
David Dyer-Bennet, ; http://dd-b.net/
Snapshots: http://dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/data/
Photos: http://dd-b.net/photography/gallery/
Dragaera: http://dragaera.info

[David Dyer-Bennet]

Gunner Asch > writes:

> On Wed, 25 Jan 2012 16:53:24 -0800 (PST), Shall not be infringed
> > wrote:
>
>>On Jan 24, 11:34*pm, Gunner Asch > wrote:
>>> On Tue, 24 Jan 2012 13:39:03 -0600, David Dyer-Bennet >
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> >> People who are afraid are not necessarily rational or "reasonable" about it.
>>>
>>> >But the legal right to use deadly force IS conditioned on your fear
>>> >being both immediate and "reasonable", which is where this discussion
>>> >began.
>>>
>>> Fear? *Can *you provide cites to the "fear" of which you blither?
>>
>>Fear is like pain. There is no way to measure it. You either say you
>>have it or you say you don't.
>
> Yes of course. Now Californias law makes no mention of fear whatsoever.
>
>
> "reasonable cause to believe that your life or the life of another is in
> immediate danger"
>
> No fear is required.

Legally those mean the exact same thing.

--
David Dyer-Bennet, ; http://dd-b.net/
Snapshots: http://dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/data/
Photos: http://dd-b.net/photography/gallery/
Dragaera: http://dragaera.info

[RD Sandman]

David Dyer-Bennet > wrote in
:

> "SaPeIsMa" > writes:
>
>> "David Dyer-Bennet" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> "SaPeIsMa" > writes:
>>>
>>>> "David Dyer-Bennet" > wrote in message
>>>> ...
>>>>> "SaPeIsMa" > writes:
>>>>>
>>>>>> "Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
>>>>>> ...
>>>>>>> SaPeIsMa writes:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> You're strapped into a metal cylinder with the doors closed
>>>>>>>> Where exactly do you imagine you can do a "feasible
>>>>>>>> retreat" ?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> It doesn't matter. The criterion of immediate fear or death or
>>>>>>> bodily harm is
>>>>>>> not satisfied.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I don't know about you, but being strapped into a metal tube that
>>>>>> can crash and burn, and over which you have ABSOLUTELY NO
>>>>>> CONTROl, is not exactly free of the fear of immediate death and
>>>>>> or bodily harm by any count
>>>>>> Why do you think that white-knuckle syndrome os so prevalent
>>>>>> during takeoffs and landings ?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> :-)
>>>>>
>>>>> Not reasonable in the legal sense, though; the actual odds of
>>>>> crashing and burning are trivial.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> People who are afraid are not necessarily rational or "reasonable"
>>>> about it.
>>>
>>> But the legal right to use deadly force IS conditioned on your fear
>>> being both immediate and "reasonable", which is where this
>>> discussion began.
>>>
>>
>> Funny,
>> But there's nothing in the Minnesota statutes about "reasonable"
>> You just have to be in "imminent fear"
>> And that is not "reasonable fear"
>
> I believe that 'reasonable' is implicit in the entire body of the law,
> though; you can't justify any random thing by claiming some convenient
> fear.

Bingo!! Particularly laws regarding use of deadly physical force.

> I *know* that it was explicitly included in all the different
> materials I've seen from different instructors for carry permit
> courses in the state.

The "reasonable person" thingy.

>>>>> I've heard other people talk about this "no control" issue, but I
>>>>> just fail to get it. I don't *want* to be in control of the
>>>>> airplane; I'm not the trained pilot.
>>>>
>>>> What you may want or not want has nothing to do with it.
>>>> You need to put yourself in the shoes of the person in fear.
>>>> Your view counts for nothing in their universe.
>>>
>>> Wrong; I might be on the jury.
>>
>> IN which case, you just demonstrated prejudice and should be
>> disqualified
>
> And so must everybody else.

The defendent or his attorney needs to articulate that fear well enough
in court to convince the jury.

--
It's impossible to defeat an ignorant man in argument.

William G McAdoo


Sleep well, tonight.....

RD (The Sandman)

[Scout]

"RD Sandman" > wrote in message
...
> "Scout" > wrote in news:jgs5q1
> :
>
>>
>>
>> "RD Sandman" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> "Scout" > wrote in
> news:jgpnkj
>>> :
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> "RD Sandman" > wrote in message
>>>> ...
>>>>> "Michael A. Terrell" > wrote in
>>>>> m:
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> SaPeIsMa wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
>>>>>>> ...
>>>>>>> > RD Sandman > writes:
>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>> >> The definition is a "reasonable person". And, yes, from flight
>>>>>>> >> cabin announcements over the years, a goodly number of normally
>>>>>>> >> "reasonable" passengers could very well have that fear.
>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>> > What part of the announcements would instill such an irrational
>>>>>>> > fear?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Let's see
>>>>>>> THe dropping oxygen masks
>>>>>>> The proper position for a crash landing
>>>>>>> THe use of a seat cushion as a floatation device
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The serving of airline food.
>>>>>
>>>>> The peanuts used to be pretty good.
>>>>
>>>> I always liked the almonds better.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> You flew first class, I didn't....back then.
>>
>> Nope, just economy. But you could still get the almonds.
>
> Damn, all I got were the peanuts......and free drinks. Oh, well, I
> assume that makes up for the peanuts.

Hell, got free drinks too. I think you could even get alcohol if you were an
adult......but there may or may not have been a small fee for that. I want
to say the fees came later, but can't say for certain since at that time I
wasn't of age and even now I'm not much of a drinker.
Heck, I've even got packs of playing cards they handed out if you asked for
them.

[Michael A. Terrell]

Spehro Pefhany wrote:
>
> On Sun, 05 Feb 2012 23:25:28 -0500, the renowned "Michael A. Terrell"
> > wrote:
>
> >
> >SaPeIsMa wrote:
> >>
> >> "Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
> >> ...
> >> > RD Sandman > writes:
> >> >
> >> >> The definition is a "reasonable person". And, yes, from flight cabin
> >> >> announcements over the years, a goodly number of normally "reasonable"
> >> >> passengers could very well have that fear.
> >> >
> >> > What part of the announcements would instill such an irrational fear?
> >>
> >> Let's see
> >> THe dropping oxygen masks
> >> The proper position for a crash landing
> >> THe use of a seat cushion as a floatation device
> >
> > The serving of airline food.
>
> That's rare these days on domestic flights.


I should hope so. The bad food is why I haven't flown since 1974. :)


--
You can't have a sense of humor, if you have no sense.

[Michael A. Terrell]

RD Sandman wrote:
>
> "Michael A. Terrell" ? wrote in
> m:
>
> ?
> ? SaPeIsMa wrote:
> ??
> ?? "Mxsmanic" ? wrote in message
> ?? ...
> ?? ? RD Sandman ? writes:
> ?? ?
> ?? ?? The definition is a "reasonable person". And, yes, from flight
> ?? ?? cabin announcements over the years, a goodly number of normally
> ?? ?? "reasonable" passengers could very well have that fear.
> ?? ?
> ?? ? What part of the announcements would instill such an irrational
> ?? ? fear?
> ??
> ?? Let's see
> ?? THe dropping oxygen masks
> ?? The proper position for a crash landing
> ?? THe use of a seat cushion as a floatation device
> ?
> ? The serving of airline food.
>
> The peanuts used to be pretty good.


If you could open them. :)

--
You can't have a sense of humor, if you have no sense.

[Michael A. Terrell]

SaPeIsMa wrote:
>
> "Michael A. Terrell" ? wrote in message
> m...
> ?
> ? SaPeIsMa wrote:
> ??
> ?? "Mxsmanic" ? wrote in message
> ?? ...
> ?? ? RD Sandman ? writes:
> ?? ?
> ?? ?? The definition is a "reasonable person". And, yes, from flight cabin
> ?? ?? announcements over the years, a goodly number of normally "reasonable"
> ?? ?? passengers could very well have that fear.
> ?? ?
> ?? ? What part of the announcements would instill such an irrational fear?
> ??
> ?? Let's see
> ?? THe dropping oxygen masks
> ?? The proper position for a crash landing
> ?? THe use of a seat cushion as a floatation device
> ?
> ? The serving of airline food.
> ?
>
> What airline food ??


I was served what they called a 'steak' the LAST time I flew.
>


--
You can't have a sense of humor, if you have no sense.

[RD Sandman]

"Scout" > wrote in
:

>
>
> "RD Sandman" > wrote in message
> ...
>> "Scout" > wrote in
>> news:jgs5q1 :
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> "RD Sandman" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>> "Scout" > wrote in
>> news:jgpnkj
>>>> :
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> "RD Sandman" > wrote in message
>>>>> ...
>>>>>> "Michael A. Terrell" > wrote in
>>>>>> m:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> SaPeIsMa wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> "Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
>>>>>>>> ...
>>>>>>>> > RD Sandman > writes:
>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>> >> The definition is a "reasonable person". And, yes, from
>>>>>>>> >> flight cabin announcements over the years, a goodly number
>>>>>>>> >> of normally "reasonable" passengers could very well have
>>>>>>>> >> that fear.
>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>> > What part of the announcements would instill such an
>>>>>>>> > irrational fear?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Let's see
>>>>>>>> THe dropping oxygen masks
>>>>>>>> The proper position for a crash landing
>>>>>>>> THe use of a seat cushion as a floatation device
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The serving of airline food.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The peanuts used to be pretty good.
>>>>>
>>>>> I always liked the almonds better.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> You flew first class, I didn't....back then.
>>>
>>> Nope, just economy. But you could still get the almonds.
>>
>> Damn, all I got were the peanuts......and free drinks. Oh, well, I
>> assume that makes up for the peanuts.
>
> Hell, got free drinks too. I think you could even get alcohol if you
> were an adult......but there may or may not have been a small fee for
> that. I want to say the fees came later, but can't say for certain
> since at that time I wasn't of age and even now I'm not much of a
> drinker. Heck, I've even got packs of playing cards they handed out if
> you asked for them.
>
>

Yep, I remember those. Had a design of an airplane on the back.

--
It's impossible to defeat an ignorant man in argument.

William G McAdoo


Sleep well, tonight.....

RD (The Sandman)