Scruit

When some store was closing up it's brick&mortar locations they sold all their stock on a no-returns basis. I bought a dvd player and it was DOA. Went through the warranty process with the manufacturer who said they it was truly DOA but they had a deal with the store that the store woudl handle warranty returns, they didn't take warranty returns themselves due to product cobranding or some such bollocks. The store refused it as "no returns". Management also refused it, depsit me sayign it was a warranty claim, not a return? Finally I complained enough to get to head office and talked to a laywer there. He tried the same "No returns" argument until I quoted him the two sections of ohio law that show a "return policy" and a "warranty policy" are different things. To disclaim warranty they would have to mark the item as "as-is" or similar, and to disclaim returns they mark the item as "no returns". As I was making a warranty claim, which was not disclaimed, they are still on the hook. After a minute of silence on the phone he send me a gift card in the amount of the purchase that was valid on their web store that was still open. When it arrived I burned that sucker up on music cds before the day was out. Moral of the story? "Don't get Scruit going..." I mean, errr, "don't take no for an answer if you have a solid legal footing."

I know a guy who was a BACA member. He told me about another BACA biker who was rammed off the road and killed by someone they had protected a kid from.

Of all the comments I've seen about the drone-delivery thing, I'd say by an order of magnitude the most prevalent is the suggestion of shooting them down. For a country that is struggling to improve the image of shooting enthusiasts it's a little troubling to see that kind of 'ammo' being handed to anti-gunners on a silver platter.

Longer version that was not stolen as free advertising material by some shitty car performance shop: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2AjU7KcizCI Has more of the radio conversation.

I think many people had strong opinions on the situation, not necessarily the guy himself. I don't know him, don't care. I DO care about the handling of the legal response to his situation because it invariably sets the tone for the response to future incidents. If the outcome was that *your* attempt to approach a suspicious person makes *you* responsible for *their* violent reaction then that would turn us into a nation of people scared to talk to strangers.

When I was in University in the UK there was a long stretch of road going into Sheffield that had something like 7 or 8 sets of lights. The lights were timed so that if you were doing the speed limit you would only his one red. If you went too fast you'd hit the tail end of the red of the next light. There was no active scanning/switching of lights, just the timing. Once you got caught at one red, the timing meant you hit the first part of the green on the rest of the lights. Worked out great. Speeds were always close to the speed limit and everyone knew it and we would have greens almost all the way through.

http://philadelphia.cbslocal.com/2013/11/18/phila-road-engineers-say-speeders-will-trigger-red-lights-on-kelly-drive/?hpt=us_bn7 If you speed on Kelly Drive in Philly you can expect the intersections ahead to turn red for you. Interesting...

So what is more dangerous? a) Shooting the tires of a vehicle beginning to accelerate directly away from you from starting at 10' b) Allowing the vehicle to initiate a high-speed pursuit c) Allowing the driver to drive away, but you can identify and go arrest her later d) Allowing the driver to drive away scot free

Make sure the duct tape sticks to the hairs, and the stir sticks were recently used for aircraft grade paint stripper??

I figured I'd bring this back up and compare my untrained response with what I would do *now* since I completed my EMR training course. Differences would be: - ABCs are good as I can talk to her, she is not reporting any breathing difficulties, she has good perfusion, she's Alert on AVPU and A&Ox4 - just need to watch for the unlikely event of hypovolemic shock (bleeding inside the leg) or psychogenic shock (from fear/pain). - Would probably splint rather than ice the ankle if I had access to non-improvised splints that I didn't mind losing (sam splints in a stirrup configuration maybe?), else I would hold manual stabilization knowing EMS would use their own splints in place of anything improvised (probably a vacuum splint). Don't want to put her through splinting twice if I could help it. - Would check the anterior tibial or pedal pulse plus motor and sensory function in the foot (big toe, top of foot) prior to and after splinting, if I chose to splint. Otherwise just check once and be ready to report any loss of P/M/S function to the EMTs as soon as possible. I'm not able to address any deficiencies. - Would have her lay supine on floor with both legs elevated to help with both shock risk and also to reduce the blood pressure in the broken ankle. I know what happens when you take an elevated broken ankle and put it back down to the floor - it was the worst pain I've ever been through in my life). - Originally she was laying on a padded bench which was nice and comfy but required he to sit up and lower her injured foot so she could swing around and be helped up onto the cot. I think a better option would be to have her lie on the floor where there is enough room to get her on a backboard to loading into the cot, allowing her ankle to stay at body level and hopefully reducing her pain. Todd? - Would also request a blanket from the business or coat from bystander to keep her warm and for shock management. - Would keep her talking and keep an eye on her level of consciousness. Possibly take blood pressure if she shows any sign of diminished level of consciousness or any other symptoms or shock like cool clammy skin/hypoperfusion, but as I won't have access to EMT gear like oxygen I've already exhausted my shock management options with heat/raised legs/supine so that would simply be noted for EMS. - With no significant mechanism of injury there's not much else to do but keep her as comfortable as possible, manage shock risk and stabilize the ankle to prevent any further harm/reduce pain as much as possible and wait for the EMTs. Did I win a cookie?

http://abcnews.go.com/US/minivan-stop-ends-shoots-fired-high-speed-chase/story?id=20912206 Cliffs: - Driver with kids aged 6-14 in minivan pulled over for speeding - Drivers drives off when officer goes back to cruiser write her a ticket - Driver pulls over again, gets out to speak with cop - Driver runs back to driver's seat and tries to flee - 14yo son gets out and engages in a physical confrontation with the officer - Backup arrives for officer - 14yo and driver get back in minivan - As driver drives away, one of backup officers crouches and fires at the back of the minivan Reserving judgement until I get the answer to two questions: - Did backup officer (who fired shots) know there were kids in the vehicle? - What was the backup officer shooting at? Tires or driver?

And the more active safety features they put on cars, the worse it will be. Active cruise control has already morphed into Volvo cars that you cannot rear-end someone in. Lane departure warnings will become lane departure prevention. Those little blind spot warning lights in mirrors will become active prevention too. The technology isn't that far off where the car won't let you run a red light or run a stop sign. Won't be long before we're all driving fullsize slot cars. Just hold the gas to the floor and let go of the wheel and bounce off the computer-controlled limits in steering and direction because, heck, the car won't let you do anything dangerous.

Update:

http://www.10tv.com/content/stories/2013/11/16/piketon-US-23-closed-after-serious-crash-involving-motorcycles.html

My brother had the same thing. Hope all is well with your boy.

I can't imagine that is a useful technique. For climbing, that is.

The car overwhelmingly had their brakes OFF, meaning they were all moving or in park. Either this picture was a composite of these cars all sat without moving even an inch for 5 minutes. Even the oncoming cars that are not stuck in traffic.

None of the cars have their brake lights on

More information from CNN: http://www.cnn.com/2013/11/06/justice/new-mexico-search-lawsuit/index.html?hpt=ju_c2 That explains why the cops wanted to search him. Question is, is that enough for a judge to issue a warrant? Also, I thought an x-ray was a pretty effective way to find drugs inside someone. If the x-ray found nothing then why do a physical search?

Do you not see the difference between allowing someone to engage in the practices of their own religion versus forcing someone to engage in the practices of another religion? Please expand on "we all make way for that same little muslim..." (Not very sly use of diminutive, BTW) What does the class have to do? Sit and wait? Listen? Push tables aside? Chant verses from the koran? The government must allow people the freedom to practice their religion unless is interferes with other people. Allowing a person to find a quiet place to pray in private is ok. Allowing them to pray in a classroom is not, regardless of what religion they follow. When I was growing up the schools I went to made us say grace at lunch (you got after-school detention if a teacher saw your lips not moving) and one school actually walked us all down the the local church for a service each day. That's what happens when you grow up in a country with an official state-sanctioned religion. The effect it had was to push me away from religion.

I'd be interested to see if there was any other basis for the warrant (either legal or illegal) such as the man's prior history. It seems to be a total waste of police time if nothing else. Cops I know are not immune to stretching or breaking the rules on search and seizure if they truly believe they will find something - but the idea that they would go to these lengths without some other indication of the presence of drugs (even indications that do not qualify for a warrant, such an anonymous tip or prior convictions) seems at odds with what I have heard from officer. As for the driver - sue anyone and everything. He will win, and rightly so. He should sue their asses. Wait, that's insensitive. He should sue the pants off them. Wait, err, I mean sue the shit out of them.. Wait, errr.. You know what I mean,.

Sometime speed alone is enough but some judges have demanded some other factor be present for recklessness.

The guy in the pic looks like he just figured out what "false advertising" means...

They have the same right against unreasonable search as you do. If you want the police to be able to search them at will, you have to accept they can search YOU at will too. Do you find it funny how people get bent out of shape about dui roadblocks but also then complain that the the police won't search their neighbor based upon an anonymous call?

Saw that before. Still doesn't make sense to me, They must be like; "Well, at least I don't have to wash it now." "I hear ya buddy."