Disclaimer

A CCW has nothing to do with the fact you have to meet the three tenets to use deadly force in self-defense. I just thought the article was interesting because the guy did have his CHL and as Chevy pointed out -- dude is an idiot and should've been trained / known better than to discharge the weapon over an iPhone. And you WON'T get in trouble if you understand the legal implications of your actions. Not to mention the psychological effects of taking another life -- are you prepared to do that? Really?

I was going to leave it up to peoples imagination on any creative ways to make the situation lean more in their favor, after the fact. For example, bullet entry wounds in the BACK of an assailant, probably not a good thing. Most civilians aren't going to draw their weapon unless they plan on firing it, but yea it's a grey area. I don't have the research that shows that drawing a weapon will more often than not, escalate the situation rather than diffuse it. If you have legal grounds to draw on someone, then you better be sure you have legal grounds to fire on them. Of course, this is different if you're a trained Officer of the law. I can only use terms like 'may' be an issue because you never know whether the prosecutor has an axe to grind with gun owners (politically), or maybe he just doesn't like you and decides to throw the book at 'them types of people that think they can just deal out vigilante justice'.

Yes, even if it's your dog. The only time you are allowed to fire your weapon in self-defense is if the situation meets the three qualifications. 1) You didn't cause the situation 2) You've met your duty to retreat from the situation (exception: You're already in your home, or vehicle -- see Castle Doctrine (varies from state to state)) 3) You perceived that your life was in danger of mortal harm ("You" in this case is yourself or your immediate family) So, if your house is burglarized and the burglar is unarmed and doesn't come near you or your kids or your SO, but stays in the front room and steals your laptop... legally, you don't have any grounds to shoot and kill the burglar.

I guess he's lucky he didn't sync his weapon up to iShoot that morning or he might've actually hit them.

http://www.theoutlookonline.com/news/story.php?story_id=127492175192161500

Everyone has their preferences... I wouldn't swallow though, I know jbot eats pork.

Yea, but who's do you want to put in your mouth?

I get it, but my point still is "negative press" has a very short term effect (if any), and is merely a slap on the wrist compared to the market whims that they don't control. Companies lose more money in the market in general than they do for hiding information or making mistakes within their control. So while the concept of free market punishment makes sense, it's not a reality because once a company gets so large and embeds itself culturally - it becomes monopolistic or oligarchical and is no longer subject to the market given the competitive landscape, barriers to entry, and switching costs. It shows that all else equal in the industry, the recall for Toyota has no lasting effects. Are not civil lawsuits a form of economic punishment? But, I understand in the context of our little discussion that we're using the term economic punishment to refer to 'vote with your dollars' -- and using the numbers I've shown, people have voted. It appears they don't care that 89 people have died. Just like I doubt people really care about Conklin's Dairy Farm contracts... has anyone here changed their buying habits regarding dairy products? I haven't. That video makes me sick, but I still buy the same brand of milk every week from the same place. They are synergistic... enforcing the law costs money, playing in the market costs money. The difference is the law doesn't function strictly on a cost vs. benefit curve because that wouldn't serve justice. Kind of like how they'll use $1000 in resources to pursue someone with a $100 speeding ticket. You could still make an economic argument, but the LAW doesn't make for a very efficient case. I'm just at a loss on the appropriate way to handle issues like this -- should Toyoda be held criminally liable as the CEO/figurehead if it turns out his company was negligent? Or, should Toyota corp just be civilly liable? Maybe I'm the only one that has this feeling, but it seems that "corporations" can get away with doing a lot of shady things because they're a separate legal entity vs. an individual or sole proprietor. Luckily there has been some criminal responsibility assigned to the execs in cases like Enron, but that's usually not the norm for larger corps. What should happen to the BP execs?

Just don't sign up looking for The Hurt Locker.

Just tell me how much... I'll bring my bank statement.

Or, you could pay $20 for this: http://blogs.miaminewtimes.com/shortorder/2010/05/recycled_shots_go_green_by_dri.php I'll spit in your drink for free.

No no no YOU would stick it in your vagina.

Did you remember to check your PMs with my phone number so you can call me so I can test ride it to make sure it's safe for you? That's important, people always forget that step. That's how the dealer really rakes you over the coals by telling you NOT to get a second opinion.

Vodka "slimming" is the newest trend. You could look it up, but it may be NSFW.

Ok, fine. Then I suppose the question is, why do you believe this? And, how is it sufficient? There are companies that have short terms sales drop through no-fault of their own (like when the economy tanks), why should they be punished when the circumstances are external and beyond their control vs. internal and within their control? Or are "punishment" and "down market" interchangeable terms used to describe an unfortunate events affecting sales figures? You seem to be taking punishment as a meaning a dip in sales/profit due to something within a companies control, and I've already shown that your "punishment" has had little to no affect on the overall operating income of Toyota relative to the industry. Which leads me to believe my conclusions regarding consumers + free markets is an illusion, especially when dealing with companies of that magnitude. I'm sure there were some opportunity costs lost because of the recall, but on the grand scheme it hasn't affected the Toyota Way. A slap on the wrist and a $16M fine for not being truthful with the US gov't compared to 89 (at last count, I believe) human deaths that may've been attributed to their products. Beating them on a relative/percentage basis, but not on a volume basis. Toyota wanted the global market and it took them 20 years to go from a 5% to 10% share, they needed to increase their production capacity an addition 50% in less than 5 years to hit the 15% global market they were aiming for to overtake GM. (At least I think that's what I remember from watching this last night - http://www.cnbc.com/id/36939747/)Regardless, that should be independent of the recall issue and the free market "punishment" doled out with regards to Toyota. That's the issue I have, business momentum shouldn't just give Toyota free reign to do what it will as it wills for the sake of profit. The snowball for Toyota is so large at this point it's an avalanche. "You gotta break a few eggs to make an omelette" is the tacky cliche that applies to Toyota and BP and Conklins here, like the general public just needs to accept that some shittiness occurs to have the things we have. I can agree with that from an R&D standpoint, but due diligence still needs exercised when lives are at stake. So, if you can talk your way out of a situation, it makes it OK? It's especially sweet for Toyota because they don't really have to answer to the 89 people killed or their families... they just have to answer to the little gov't oversight they have (NTHSA) and the rest of the market which is >> the victims. I guess I'm for that from a natural selection standpoint. If you know you're being sold snakeoil and still buy it, that's on you. But it still doesn't make it right or ethical. It's easy to armchair quaterback this because there's no one I personally know affected by this, but my tune may change if it happened to me.

Did you load it up with all the options?

Real cow or cardboard cow?

BMW vill eet yoor silly italia bike vor lunch. Jus vait und see.

So they slid 16%, for a month or two because of their choice to take some of their own vehicles off the market. GM and Ford are obviously going to fill that gap. Short-sighted would be reading a single blip on the radar, like one month January sales, and thinking that's sufficient. Like my prior link shows... a couple months later, sales are back up like nothing ever happened. Want comparisons? GM, still #2 behind Toyota, overall was only up 6.4% YOY in comparison (8.7% Toyota, 6.4% GM). So, apple-to-apples, same market dynamics (recession and recovery), but without any recalls... and Toyota still beat them. Like I said... consumers are the short-sighted ones. The free market doesn't punish anyone because people are apathetic, forgetful, and/or don't have the means. Thanks for keeping me entertained and not sadpanda.

/thread

I would run over a stranger to save your dog's child.

If you insist on an '02 though... $5500 http://cleveland.craigslist.org/mcy/1767544151.html Looks like it's been raced, or someone put contingency stickers on it because they're a wannabe.

Yes, the speed detente was 2001-on, but a simple wiring fix to fool the ECU to think it's in 5th gear while it's really in 6th gear will remove the speed restriction.