chevysoldier

I think Jporter's had a gap but he was able to tighten it down IIRC

Sony HX-100V Its pretty sweet. I got it in September I think, but its still pretty new to me

cool. I had to look it up cause I hadn't heard of that model.

Here's one that I just took few minutes ago.

^ and it woudlnt be hard!!

these boxes are junk...theres a nice big gap in them, perfect size to put a pry bar in..and i bet it wont take much to bust the cheap chinese locks...once i replace mine with something better im going to bust open my nanovault to see just how much it actually takes ...i dont trust it at all, sometimes i feel safer hiding my gun somewhere in the vehicle while im at work instead of in that box lol

No gap on mine?

These are for your car, comes with a cable that you tether around the seat support. If the key is on your key ring and you need your keys for your car then you never.lose it. I have a combo one and don't like it, only 3 digits which makes 999 possible combos. Anyone with the patience and balls to keep trying.it will eventually get it. I would rather just have mine on me at all times but there are still places you must enter that don't allow ccw, like the dmv, courthouse, strip club etc...

lol, how long would it take to go through 1000 (000 to 999) possibilities? The guy would pry the box open before that. lol

no i didnt.

My bad, Casper said it was the law.

and im not defending people who get convicted for DUI

i think the DUI laws are a fucking joke...i think DUI needs a MUCH stiffer penalty that it currently has...people getting 5 DUIs and shit...its pathetic, more people need prison time for it if it was up to me

drag racing has the same penalty as dui....that is unbelievable to me...dui penalties are way too lax

agreed.

im talking about personal experience from people ive seen and known...and while i didnt give them a breath test to check - if you cant even fucking walk, youre probably over .08

which is how many people? just because you think you have to be over .08 to not be able to walk, doesn't mean that's the case.

a texting ban is considered because there are so many people that text and drive and the accidents cause by it are enough to pop a red flag. OVI wasn't always illegal until it drew attention as being a big issue. If more people had accidents reading the newspaper, I'm sure we'd be considering a ban on reading and driving.

i never said you couldnt be cited - i said comparing people at .08 to txting like the article isnt a valid point for dui>txting because most accidents dui related the driver is above .08

im not sure why youre trying to read me dui laws im not even talking about the legal limit to be cited

you said .08 was the law. it's one of the laws.

i guess i didnt make my argument clear

i was saying comparing people txting to people at .08 is not the same as comparing people txting to people at .2 BAC

the people ive seen wrecking while drunk, were all well beyond .08...not saying .08 you wont wreck, but i would venture to say the majority of DUI related accidents are caused by people above .08

.02, .08, .2, it depends on the person and how they handle alcohol. and how many people have you see wreck and then you saw their BAC? You can't go off the "news", you'll only see the bad ones where the guy was a high limit. You're not gonna hear much about the guy that wrecked at .02. Yes, people wreck at .02 and don't wreck at .2

oh, and I'll add you can be cited under 4511.19 anywhere in the state. Yes the means even if you are riding your lawnmower on your own property drunk, crash into a tree and medics are called, you'll be charged.

Before tbut takes offense, it was just a comment in general.

Casper- understandable. not me though, I don't forget combos very easily and I'd rather not have to hunt for a key before I can open the box in an emergency. Of course that is saying there is something locked in the box and not on my person.

this was my point

what about my second remark in that post? guess were ignoring that?

and you could easily not drink in the first place, or sober up or get a DD.

As to your second part, there are already laws for wreckless or wanton disregard for doing dumb stuff.

most people at .08 arent even buzzed, let alone "drunk"

But .08 is the law.

yes but the law is also "driving while intoxicated" no limit needed. If you are blasted at .02, you will be cited for OVI. if you are totally "good" at .08, you will be cited for OVI.

ORC 5411.19

(A)(1) No person shall operate any vehicle, streetcar, or trackless trolley within this state, if, at the time of the operation, any of the following apply:

(a) The person is under the influence of alcohol, a drug of abuse, or a combination of them.

(b) The person has a concentration of eight-hundredths of one per cent or more but less than seventeen-hundredths of one per cent by weight per unit volume of alcohol in the person’s whole blood.

........

just FYI, they make a combo version, no key to lose.

1. where is your proof for this statement?

I think there have been studies comparing OVI to driving and texting. IIRC texting is just as dangerous if not more so that operating a vehicle while intoxicated. I'd have to look around though.

Mythbusters also tested this:

Driving while talking on a cell phone is just as dangerous as driving while intoxicated.

CONFIRMED

Both Adam and Kari failed a general-purpose road safety test while talking on a cell phone and while driving drunk, with cell phones by a wider margin. However, Adam commented that one can easily put away a cell phone if necessary, but not simply become sober as needed.

http://mythbustersresults.com/episode33

good point about on the reasonable officer vs person...

still its already been ruled as excessive to use pepper spray on non violent protesters.

the protestors were sitting peacefully, were easily moved by the police, and did not threaten or harm the officers. In sum, it would be clear to a reasonable officer that it was excessive to use pepper spray against the nonviolent protestors under these circumstances.

we conclude that Philip and Lewis are not entitled to qualified immunity because the use of pepper spray on the protestors' eyes and faces was plainly in excess of the force necessary under the circumstances, and no reasonable officer could have concluded otherwise.

http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-9th-circuit/1332957.html

What is the definition of "peaceful" though? What's the "line"?

I'm not familiar with what happened at that protest but am aware of the case you cited.

Does the crowd saying "Fuck the police", "we'll let you leave if...", "don't shoot students (your children)", etc when the police are surrounded and are out numbered make it justifiable? It would only take one person to throw a punch and it would turn into a very dangerous riot. Not to mention they all got numerous warnings and the police were armed with riot batons and spray. Would you rather be sprayed or see the business end of a baton? The totality of the circumstances makes me believe the option of using OC spray was a better option than going hands on with force and escalating it all.

Had the protest not surrounded the LEOs and not used threatening words, I would agree with you they should have left without using OC spray. If of course what I have seen on video matches the testimony from the LE and their chain of command, the protesters and the school. I'm not privy to that information.

What about myspace?

My buddy owns his own ballistics company and does bullet design and analysis on bullets and other high speed flows. I just sent him the link to get his opinion.

Im calling Bullshit.

Make sure you let us know. I'm curious as to his response.

hahahahahah... oh wait... you're serious. let me laugh even harder.

i honestly do not see how a reasonable person could watch that video and conclude that the police were in any danger whatsoever. maybe if everyone in the crowd had a bat and helmet...

either you are just trolling, or are just a toadie...

That's why they aren't judged by a reasonable person standard but from the perspective of a reasonable officer. GRAHAM V. CONNOR, 490 U. S. 386 (1989)

The Fourth Amendment "reasonableness" inquiry is whether the officers' actions are "objectively reasonable" in light of the facts and circumstances confronting them, without regard to their underlying intent or motivation. The "reasonableness" of a particular use of force must be judged from the perspective of a reasonable officer on the scene, and its calculus must embody an allowance for the fact that police officers are often forced to make split-second decisions about the amount of force necessary in a particular situation. Pp. 490 U. S. 396-397.

My emphasis above.

Not to mention the protesters out numbered the officers, just because they didn't have bats doesn't mean they aren't or can't become very dangerous very quickly.

What camera did you get?

I just wanted a good reason to say Coshocton is full of bird crap.

At dusk, they come in and do their business, in front of all of the Main Street businesses.

http://www2.nbc4i.com/news/2011/jan/26/3/coshocton-crows-create-quite-mess-ar-376858/

Coshocton is scaring its crows with little "launchers" that are no bigger than a squirt gun.

The launcher shoots charges called "bird bangers" into roosting flocks.

http://www2.nbc4i.com/news/2011/jan/27/5/crow-battles-coshocton-ar-378101/

+1

apparently I cannot rep you 2 posts in a row

got it

Hey this is pretty cool. USB rechargeable AA battery.

Mine snapped two summers ago. I had just pulled out of the driveway and went to shift into second. I just circled through a parking lot and parked it back at my place. Took the car to work.

Wow, I am only around post #70. I'm not reading all these....