redkow97

I'm liking the Hi Point .38, but also considering a shotgun at this point.

the attraction to the .38 is that I COULD carry it if i wanted to, and ammo is ~$.50 per round rather than more like $1/round with the shotgun.

I don't anticipate going to the range a lot, but i would want to get there every couple months to stay proficient at shooting.

^ only the worst org in the world would let you out on track without someone keeping an eye on you.

NESBA is the most "hands-off" org i've ridden with, but trust me, they're not ignoring you.

In novice, there is almost no such thing as "open track time." The difference you'll encounter is that some orgs will start you off really really slow, and control what you're allowed to do by saying "no passing coaches - no passing within your 'group.'" That's how STT runs things.

the opposite approach is the orgs who say, "no passing for the first 2 laps. let's go out and see what everyone can do, and then we'll work with the people who need the most help." that's how NESBA runs things.

I would say that the STT approach is better for people who are more timid about riding, but the NESBA approach allows you to improve more quickly, because it's 100% 1-on-1 instruction, instead of waiting for hte slowest person in your group.

I'm already booked for June 28 & 29 at Mid-O. will likely add more dates as I gather cash - just booked that because a friend of mine will be in town, and we're pitting together.

This is 3 miles from my house. I know that because my in-laws live on that street and I jog from our house to theirs when it's not snowing... They're in a nicer neighborhood than we are.

http://blog.cleveland.com/metro/2009/12/3_cleveland_men_accused_of_inv.html

"PARMA HEIGHTS, Ohio — Lamont Chaney, 18, Enoch Hall, 19, and Jayson Townsend, 28, all of Cleveland, are due in court today on charges of kidnapping, aggravated robbery, aggravated burglary, felonious assault and carrying a concealed weapon. The trio is accused of invading a home on Greenbriar Drive in Parma Heights Dec. 21.

They were armed, demanded money and assaulted the victims, prosecutor's spokesman Ryan Miday said.

"It was a horrifying night for this family," he said.

"J-Roc" Townsend, of Edmonton Avenue, has a lengthy criminal history here that began in 2000 with drug possession. He pleaded guilty to drug trafficking in 2003 and 2004 and was sentenced to 1 1/2 years in prison. In March 2007, he pleaded to carrying a concealed weapon and was sentenced to another 1 1/2 years followed by three years of post-release control.

Chaney lived in the 1400 block of West 101st Street. Hall lived in the 1400 block of East 93rd Street. Their juvenile records were not available.

The three suspects will be arraigned today in Cuyahoga County Common Pleas Court."

The family also owns a liquor store in East Cleveland, so (according to neighborhood gossip, procured by my mother-in-law) the victim suspects these jokers followed him home to find out where he lived, and believed he kept large amounts of cash in the house. Maybe the saw him take the register money home once, and assumed he kept it at home? Otherwise, i don't see why they wouldn't just rob the guy while he's closing...

the article doesn't say so, but i'm told the suspects restrained the victims, but didn't take their phones. They called 911, and police caught the suspects as they attempted to flee the home.

so who's got an inexpensive revolver or shotgun for sale? Reliable and cheap are my primary interests. I'll also be interested in a .22 for range use...

Amish buggies cause so many crashes and wrecks... studies have shown (as with the truckers speed limit) it isn't the slow or fast, it's the DIFFERENCE from other traffic.

Buggies should not be allowed on public roads, sorry, but this is how I personally feel. I don't care if your personal belief is cars are evil and all new technology is evil...

put it in the "legal discussion" section :-p

is a (religious?) belief a "pre-existing condition," or a choice?

in a civil case, the FDA will only have to show that it was 'reasonably prudent' in its actions or inactions.

the fact that the FDA creates regulations that amount to criminal violations muddies the waters a little bit, but anyone would be hard-pressed to show that the FDA was negligent.

The fact is that the FDA doesn't actually TEST the drugs, they merely created the standards by which drug companies must test the drugs.

If the FDA created a regulation that said "any and all new drugs must be tested for multiple generations so we can gauge their effect on pregnant women and their resulting children," that would pretty much halt new drug production for the next 40-60 years. You're telling me people would be happy with THAT result?

wow i figured how much they were advertising this thing that it would be a total flop. i guess i was wrong, everyone i knwo who has seen it said it was amazing. i may go see it christmas day

I have read that the story is thin at best, but you won't care, because of the special effects and stuff.

one of my coworkers referred to Avatar as "dances with wolves set in 2118"

I haven't seen it, so I'm not totally clear on the plot, but does anyone else find it more than mildly ironic that a movie about the evils of technological advancement and the virtues of simplicity cost $400,000,000 to make?

Honestly, i'd have to look it up to see how his particular case was decided, but I believe a 'market share' liability theory WAS used.

So in this case, there were 90% of the producers sued, so the Plaintiff could only collect a maximum of 90% of her damages. In the case of the drug companies who were out of business, the remaining defendants DO NOT have to pay their share. So in this case, the client likely collected significantly LESS than 90% of her damages.

In an Enterprise liability application, the Plaintiff collects 100% of her damages, because the entire 'enterprise' is negligent. The remaining defendants have to pick up the slack for those who have gone out of business, which I think is BS, but some courts disagree.

Therein lies the debate - "market share" stands to leave the Plaintiff somewhat un-compensated, and "enterprise" makes successful companies more accountable than their failed counter-parts.

With the pharmacy industry as huge as it is today, there's less of an issue now than there used to be, but market-share can be unpopular if there's a fear that it will prevent companies from trying to create new drugs.

Enterprise is also easier to apply when there's some kind of independent certifying body. In the Sindell case, the drug companies had worked together to create the drug.

Without making it a separate question, DES grand-children are NOT able to recover. The court has consistently ruled that while Grandma A directly ingested the drug, and Mother B was directly affected in-utero, Grandchild C may legitimately be damaged, but had no direct interaction with the drug company. Therefore, no recovery is allowable. That's mostly a policy ruling so the same family can't continue to sue for generation after generation - again, it keeps pharmacy co's from being terrified to introduce new drugs.

I don't disagree that the FDA should be held responsible, but they're not being sued in the fact pattern presented.

to speak to the insolvent parties, the question is really "how much can the plaintiff recover?"

(if we get into that, we start to answer the question of who is really being held responsible, etc.)

I would contend that NOT all of the drug makers are liable. they are all NEGLIGENT, but only one of tehm produced the pills that injured the plaintiff.

If i drive drunk, and you're hit by someone else who is also driving drunk, I'm negligent (in the same manner as the party who harmed you) and you're injured, but I'm not liable for your injury.

civil law demands an ACTUAL injury. Criminal law defines behaviors that are so potentially dangerous, they're deemed intolerable even without an injury. The latter is irrelevant here.

You sir, are about 5 post too late - same thread.

http://www.ohio-riders.com/showpost.php?p=396048&postcount=17

I'd say I got it right.

only the first half of the question was about what was actually (legally) 'right.'

I thought everyone's opinions would be more interesting. Looking it up isn't an opinion.

(another real case with fake names). Betty Smith is pregnant, and takes prescription drug DES.

Betty's daughter Marge experiences birth defects from the drug 20+ years later, after her mother has died.

Marge sues 5 drug companies for her damages. It is an undisputed fact that DES was definitely the cause of her injuries, but she has no way of proving which drug company actually produced the pill that her mother took.

a total of 20 companies produced DES, but the 5 defendants produced 90% of the DES sold in the United States. Of those 5, only 3 remain in business.

Who pays?

(i'll say up front that this is kind of a trick question, because it takes the Summers v. Tice ruling, and outlines 2 other possible applications of 'justice' with multiple negligent defendants)

the 'answer.'

The case is Summers v. Tice, if anyone cares to read the opinion, and no one got it exactly right, although many of you were on the right track.

Basically, the court is sympathetic to the Plaintiff, and says "well, one of these guys DID shoot him, so he has to recover 100% of his damages."

The question of whom is left to the plaintiff. He can recover 100% from EITHER party, or he can say "i want 20% from you, and 80% from you." That's called "joint and several liability," which is kind of an old-school principle these days, but still applicable in some cases.

what irritates me a little is that say one of the guys who shot at him was his father. obviously he's going to ask for 100% from the other guy.

the fact that most people don't like (myself included) is that someone innocent is being held liable - even if you can't tell whom.

Aside from expansion teams of Houston & Jacksonville.... I think pretty much every other team in the NFL has made a Super Bowl appearence...

For all intents and purposes, the Browns were an expansion team in 1999.

Because they maintained the team name, colors, and records, I don't think they're "officially" regarded as such, but starting from scratch is starting from scratch.

I'm not about to defend the fact that the 2009 Browns are really no better than the 1999 Browns, nor am I arguing that the 30 year drought prior to the Ravens inception is acceptable, but I'm judging the current team only against the last 10 years of shitty-management.

Holmgren's got his work cut out for him, but I don't know what they expect the guy to do.

My opinion (like anyone gives a shit) is that we need to suck it up and play with Quinn at QB. drafting (and paying) another one is simply pointless. Build the offense, and let BQ be BQ... if he improves, great, if he doesn't then we can hope to attract someone better from within the league - but clearly this club has shown that they CANNOT develop a quarterback, so stop wasting draft picks trying...

Tiger Woods says, "Chris Henry, Brittany Murphy... DAMNIT, I NEED SOMEONE MORE FAMOUS THAN ME TO FUCK UP."

Maybe i'm the only person who finds this kind of shit interesting (if so, i promise not to stat any more threads:) ), but I enjoy the complexities of our legal system. The problem is, in a 50-75 minute class, you rarely get to truly debate the merits of various points. Political discussions on this board prove we've got some intelligent members, and a variety of opinions, so i'm curious to see what everyone thinks.

The hunting thread reminded me of this case. What does everyone think the decision WAS, and what do you think it SHOULD have been?:

3 men are hunting, and 1 goes to take a piss.

As he returns, the other 2 BOTH fire in his direction (i.e. both of them obviously act negligently. That's a fact. not up for debate). Only one of them actually hits him, but it's impossible to determine which one. (this is an actual case from the 1920's or something, so forensic evidence doesn't exist).

The man who is shot sues the other two for $100k (total). What is the result?

have you seen all the porn on the internet? that usually keeps me busy for a few hours.

he was ok...

but I admit i'm a harsh critic. 2 of my housemates in college were music majors, as was I for about a year.

but you don't need to be an awesome musician to be successful... Song-writing is teh real talent. It's not like Neil Young or Tom Petty have great voices, and I've paid to see both of them.

wasn't there a movie where the employees did something similar?

they just walked into the store where they used to work, grabbed an item that cost $48, and took it up to the counter and said they wanted to return it.

"Sears policy is that you don't need a receipt for any item that costs less than $50, so just grab anything that costs under $50, take it to a cashier, and get your $40 from them. As long as you don't go to the same cashier again, and don't pull the stunt more than once a day, it's tough to get caught - and even if you do, you haven't removed anything from the store, so they can't convict you of shoplifting."

Worst idea ever!

Id give up street riding before I gave up track riding... SEARCH FOR THE MONEY MAN......SEARCH!!!!!!!

i'll have the money in about 4 years, after i pass the bar and Obama saves the economy

I'm not seriously considering selling the track bike, but the idea crossed my mind.

i got in great shape, blew stuff up, shot very large weapons, qualified sharpshooter and gained alot of personal self confindence...

"it's like Bally's, except they pay US!"

welcome back.

I'm in for anything that doesn't conflict with another trackday.

(and I also have a cheap trailer for sale if anyone is interested.) Assuming i've got this trailer sold, and a new one purchased, I should be equipped to take at least 2, if not 3 bikes.

If my brother's isn't one of them, I also have a set of old 2-piece leathers that someone could borrow. size 42, but fits smaller than that. (i can shoehorn into them when it rains, and i'm 6' ~180).

The 8 can get to 150 and stay there.

The internets (W!!!) yields conflicting information. I looked very briefly, but I saw on one forum that the car is drag-limited to 134mph, and someone else said electronically limited to 150 in 6th gear (you can go faster by revving higher in 5th though, where the speed limiter won't kick in)

There's video of an RX-8 pulling 184 on a dyno, but without wind-drag, that's not really relevant...

is this place still open? www.dirtworldmx.com?

I used to have a friend who owned land in Richfield, and we could ride there "as long as we didn't tear up the main drive," but i lost touch with him in high school...

$20 for 4PM-dusk beats the hell out of $165+ for trackdays...

I'm looking at the 2010 trackday budget, and this year's numbers aren't adding up like last year's (went back to school and had to quit my second job. $9k less to play with this year )

I'm at least entertaining the idea of selling my track bike, and getting into dirt riding - but I have no idea where i'd ride.

suggestions? (I'm in NEO, but it's not like I don't drive several hours to do trackdays anyway...)

for those who are into dirt riding now, how much am i going to miss doing 140 mph, and dragging a knee through corners? Can off-road riding really be a substitute, or am i just going to end up with another expensive hobby, and a 3rd or 4th bike in the garage?