Today's Headlines

[awip2062]

I wonder if Washington has a similar law.

[Walkinghairball]

I wonder if Washington has a similar law.

Here are a few things I found on it.
RCW 9A.16.050Homicide ? By other person ? When justifiable.
Homicide is also justifiable when committed either:

(1) In the lawful defense of the slayer, or his or her husband, wife, parent, child, brother, or sister, or of any other person in his presence or company, when there is reasonable ground to apprehend a design on the part of the person slain to commit a felony or to do some great personal injury to the slayer or to any such person, and there is imminent danger of such design being accomplished; or

(2) In the actual resistance of an attempt to commit a felony upon the slayer, in his presence, or upon or in a dwelling, or other place of abode, in which he is.
[1975 1st ex.s. c 260 ? 9A.16.050.]
[edit]

Stand-your-ground
Other states expressly relieve the home's occupants of any duty to retreat or announce their intent to use deadly force before they can be legally justified in doing so to defend themselves. Clauses that state this fact are called "Stand Your Ground", "Line In The Sand" or "No Duty To Retreat" clauses, and state exactly that; the shooter has no duty or other requirement to abandon a place in which he has a right to be, or to give up ground to an assailant. States often differentiate between altercations occurring inside a home or business and altercations in public places; there may be a duty to retreat from an assailant in public when there is no duty to retreat from one's own property, or there may be no duty to retreat from anywhere the shooter may legally be.[3] Other restrictions may still exist; when in public, a person must be carrying the firearm in a legal manner, whether concealed or openly.
"Stand your ground" governs U.S. federal case law in which self-defense is asserted against a charge of criminal homicide. The Supreme Court ruled in Beard v. U.S. (1895) that a man who was "where he had the right to be" when he came under attack and "...did not provoke the assault, and had at the time reasonable grounds to believe, and in good faith believed, that the deceased intended to take his life, or do him great bodily harm...was not obliged to retreat, nor to consider whether he could safely retreat, but was entitled to stand his ground."[4][5]
In a Minnesota case, State v. Gardner (1905) where a man was acquitted for killing another man who attempted to kill him with a rifle, Judge Jaggard stated:
? The doctrine of "retreat to the wall" had its origin [in Medieval England] before the general introduction of guns. Justice demands that its application have due regard to the general use of and to the type of firearms. It would be good sense for the law to require, in many cases, an attempt to escape from a hand to hand encounter with fists, clubs, and even knives, as a justification for killing in self-defense; while it would be rank folly to require [an attempt to escape] when experienced men, armed with repeating rifles, face each other in an open space, removed from shelter, with intent to kill or cause great bodily harm[6] ?
Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. declared in Brown v. United States when upholding the no duty to retreat maxim that detached reflection cannot be demanded in the presence of an uplifted knife.[7]

[edit]
Washington
Washington is one of the original "shall issue" states, in which a concealed pistol permit must be issued to any applicant, age 21 or older, who meets certain requirements, including no felony convictions, no misdemeanor domestic violence convictions, and no outstanding warrants.[108][109] Furthermore, a concealed pistol license is not required to carry a concealed pistol if the person carrying the firearm is in route to, in route from, or actively participating in a "legitimate outdoor activity".[110] Open carrying of firearms is not prohibited by law although trouble with some law enforcement agencies has been encountered while open carrying in the past, most notably in a case in Ellensburg, Washington.[111]
Currently, there is a growing movement towards open carry in Washington. In Washington, there was a tremendous amount of disinformation among law enforcement officers, gun store employees, and firearms instructors about RCW 9.41.270.
In December 2005, activists Lonnie Wilson and Jim March went to the state archives in Olympia to research the origins of the law. March, with his experience in researching gun control laws created out of racial discrimination and strife in California, surmised during a conversation between himself and Wilson that due to year it was passed, it was likely due to "Panther paranoia". March was proven correct.
The law, passed in 1969, was passed in response to incidents involving the Seattle Chapter of Black Panther Party at Rainier Beach High School and the Protest of the Mulford Act by the main organization in the California Assembly.
Due to the fact that Washington State Constitution has an individual right to keep and bear arms provision (Article 1, Section 24), the Washington Legislature revised the bill that was debated to remove the "within 500 feet [152 m] of a public place" provisions and left the current statute as is. There were points of debate about whether this could be interpreted as an open carry ban, to which the sponsors of the bill replied that it was a ban against the type of intimidation that the Black Panther Party engaged in at Rainier Beach and the California Assembly, not an open carry ban.
Many law enforcement, a generation removed from the events and discussions of the Legislature when the law was created, and without much guidance interpreted the law passed as an open carry ban that is situational to someone making a 911 phone call. This interpretation spread to gun store employees and firearms instructors, who have a lot of personal interaction with law enforcement.
Using the information from the state archives, Wilson pursued the issuance of guidance and memorandums to individual officers by police administrators. After one of these bulletins was issued by one department, Wilson acquired the bulletin by a public records request, used the training bulletin as a template and approached most police departments throughout the state. To this day, over a dozen major departments, including the King County Sheriff's Department and the Seattle Police Department, have issued advisories and roll call training to their officers that peaceable open carry of a handgun in a holster is legal.
As a general rule, a person may legally open carry in Washington State in any place it is legal to possess a loaded handgun. To open carry in a vehicle (i.e., car, bus, etc...) a person must have a valid concealed pistol license. Some police agencies can be unfriendly towards open carry, so it is important that before a person exercises their right to bear arms in this fashion they acquaint themselves with relevant laws.
Prohibited areas for firearms are contained in RCW 9.41.300, RCW 9.41.280, and RCW 70.108.150.
Per RCW 9.41.290 (state preemption of firearm laws), divisions of local government (city, county, town, or other municipality) cannot regulate firearms more restrictively than the state does. Exceptions to state preemption ? that is, areas in which local governments are allowed to regulate firearms ? are contained in RCW 9.41.300. These exceptions include:
? "Restricting the discharge of firearms in any portion of their respective jurisdictions where there is a reasonable likelihood that humans, domestic animals, or property will be jeopardized. Such laws and ordinances shall not abridge the right of the individual guaranteed by Article I, section 24 of the state Constitution to bear arms in defense of self or others."
? "Restricting the possession of firearms in any stadium or convention center, operated by a city, town, county, except that such restrictions shall not apply to [concealed pistol license holders, law enforcement officers, or any] showing, demonstration, or lecture involving the exhibition of firearms."
? "Restricting the areas in their respective jurisdictions in which firearms may be sold."
Several localities (including transit agencies) who had wrongfully enforced preempted local ordinances and rules have been challenged by activists in the open carry movement (who are most directly affected by the enforcement of such ordinances) and have since backed down from enforcement and directed their police departments to no longer enforce the ordinances and rules.
Washington allows ownership of a firearm silencer, but using one is prohibited by RCW 9.41.250(3) which makes it a gross misdemeanor to "Use[s] any contrivance or device for suppressing the noise of any firearm."

Washington is a "Stand Your Ground" state, in which there is no duty to retreat in the face of what would be perceived by an ordinary person to be a threat to themselves or others by another person that is likely to cause serious injury or death.
It is a Class C felony for a non-citizen to possess a firearm in Washington without an Alien Firearm License. Washington is not currently issuing Alien Firearm Licenses. [112]
It is a gross misdemeanor to aim a firearm "whether loaded or not, at or towards any human being". [113]
Washington State accepts the concealed weapons permits from the following states: Louisiana, Michigan, Mississippi, North Carolina, Ohio, Oklahoma, and Utah.[114]

[awip2062]

Thanks, Bro!

[Walkinghairball]

Youbetcha.......hope it helped.

[CygnusX1]

I must not be fluent in 'Washingtonian'....

Can somebody translate that pre-ramble for me?

[Walkinghairball]

It means you can, just be aware of your rules first, and announce to the perp that you are gonna give 'em, "acute lead poisoning", for invading your peace.

[CygnusX1]

It means you can, just be aware of your rules first, and announce to the perp that you are gonna give 'em, "acute lead poisoning", for invading your peace.

Righteous.

As of today, we're screwed out here. The perp can even SUE THE VICTIM
here.

Deadly use of force here only if threatened IN the home.

They're working on it though.

Hopefully, common sense will prevail and the gun haters in the state
legislature will be sent packin'.

West Virginia got it right. I'm lookin' for property there RIGHT NOW.

[ElfDude]

As of today, we're screwed out here. The perp can even SUE THE VICTIM
here.

That's why Gordon Liddy says you need to make sure that they're dead.

[CygnusX1]

As of today, we're screwed out here. The perp can even SUE THE VICTIM
here.

That's why Gordon Liddy says you need to make sure that they're dead.

I know, God bless him too, but the perps' survivors are suing now...

I took some home defense firearm tactics classes. Believe me, they may
get in, but they won't get out.

[CygnusX1]

This should give you a warm-and-fuzzy about flying these days:


Pilots' reports on low fuel

The Associated Press
August 8, 2008

The Aviation Safety Reporting System, a database maintained by NASA,
has reports from pilots expressing safety concerns about airline
directives pressuring them to fly with uncomfortably low fuel levels. NASA
deletes names and other identifying information to encourage pilots,
flight crews, dispatchers and others to identify safety problems, including
their own mistakes.

Some reports:

___

In March, the captain of an Embraer 170 regional jet described landing
with less fuel than required under Federal Aviation Administration
regulations, which he blamed on his company's fuel policies.

"I know our program manager is ranking captains on landing with less
fuel. I don't care to be ranked. I think this is a safety problem and I
believe fuel is your friend," the captain said. "Looking back, I would have
liked more gas yesterday, and I was already carrying tanker fuel. If I
wouldn't have had this extra there would have been real problems."

(Tanker fuel is the extra fuel a plane might carry to avoid refueling in a
place where the cost is very high.)

___

The captain of a Boeing 747 said he began to run low on fuel after
meeting strong headwinds over the Atlantic en route to JFK in New York
in February. After contacting his company to discuss a refueling stop, the
captain said he was told by his operations manager that the flight actually
needed less fuel than had been loaded on board and would have enough
to get to JFK without stopping.

But by the time he reached JFK, his fuel was "far below my comfort zone
and probably less than the minimum fuel required by the FARs (federal
aviation regulations)," the captain said. "Our fuel situation had not
become critical yet, but had we had any delay, I would have had to
declare a fuel emergency."

"I am not sure if the 'flight plan' as given to me by my company was a
real flight plan, or if they were just telling me it was so that I would
continue to JFK ... thus saving them time and expense. ... In the future, if
such a situation presents itself again, I will divert to my initial destination
regardless of what my company says I can do. The safety of my crew far
outweighs any financial burden to the company."

___

The captain of a Boeing 737 en route to Fort Lauderdale-Hollywood
International Airport in February said he was forced to divert in bad
weather to Palm Beach International Airport to refuel because less than
the normal amount of fuel for the flight was loaded before takeoff.

"This was probably the new fuel-saving initiative by the company
management to save money," the captain said. "North-South operation is
very unpredictable along the East Coast. I don't think this is a place
where we should skimp on fuel."

The captain said he had a "lengthy discussion" with his company's
dispatcher "relaying my opinion on the reduced fuel load and my
suggestion not to compromise fuel loads in and out of Florida." But the
captain said he received the same reduced amount on his next flight.

"So much for my professional input!" he said.

___

The captain of an Airbus 319 said he was en route to Miami, but an
unexpected rain storm forced the flight to divert to Ft. Lauderdale to
refuel "because in an attempt to abide by the new fuel conservation
procedures just adopted by the company, not enough fuel was put on the
aircraft to handle a simple delay. ... In an effort to save money, an
aircraft had to divert. The aircraft arrived at its destination two hours
late. Finally, the pilots had to get off their trip early because of fatigue
and because they would have flown nine hours and 40 minutes if they
had continued on."

___

The pilot of an Embraer 135 regional jet on an international flight in poor
weather last December complained that his dispatcher wanted to load
only an extra 10 minutes worth of fuel in case the flight had to hold
before landing.

"Ten minutes of hold fuel remained unchanged because management is
pressuring dispatch to fly with limited hold fuel to reduce 'costs,'" the
captain said. "Ten minutes of hold fuel into an airport with marginal
conditions because the dispatcher does not want his/her name on the fuel
list for the week printed and hung by management. Contacted dispatcher
and, after 'captain requested it,' fuel was begrudgingly added to 20
minutes to accurately reflect conditions. Low weather at an international
destination with few alternatives close by and no gas to hold.

"Get management out of the dispatch process and stop pressuring
dispatchers to cut fuel to below safe and normal levels. Create a profile
for holding based on reality, not bonus program of a few in management."

[Walkinghairball]

I hear a 22 year old kid was arrested for plotting the possible assassination of Obama.


See, not even elected and some freak show has to start up.


I didn't think it would be so soon though.

[zepboy]

This should give you a warm-and-fuzzy about flying these days:


Pilots' reports on low fuel

The Associated Press
August 8, 2008

The Aviation Safety Reporting System, a database maintained by NASA,
has reports from pilots expressing safety concerns about airline
directives pressuring them to fly with uncomfortably low fuel levels. NASA
deletes names and other identifying information to encourage pilots,
flight crews, dispatchers and others to identify safety problems, including
their own mistakes.

Some reports:

___

In March, the captain of an Embraer 170 regional jet described landing
with less fuel than required under Federal Aviation Administration
regulations, which he blamed on his company's fuel policies.

"I know our program manager is ranking captains on landing with less
fuel. I don't care to be ranked. I think this is a safety problem and I
believe fuel is your friend," the captain said. "Looking back, I would have
liked more gas yesterday, and I was already carrying tanker fuel. If I
wouldn't have had this extra there would have been real problems."

(Tanker fuel is the extra fuel a plane might carry to avoid refueling in a
place where the cost is very high.)

___

The captain of a Boeing 747 said he began to run low on fuel after
meeting strong headwinds over the Atlantic en route to JFK in New York
in February. After contacting his company to discuss a refueling stop, the
captain said he was told by his operations manager that the flight actually
needed less fuel than had been loaded on board and would have enough
to get to JFK without stopping.

But by the time he reached JFK, his fuel was "far below my comfort zone
and probably less than the minimum fuel required by the FARs (federal
aviation regulations)," the captain said. "Our fuel situation had not
become critical yet, but had we had any delay, I would have had to
declare a fuel emergency."

"I am not sure if the 'flight plan' as given to me by my company was a
real flight plan, or if they were just telling me it was so that I would
continue to JFK ... thus saving them time and expense. ... In the future, if
such a situation presents itself again, I will divert to my initial destination
regardless of what my company says I can do. The safety of my crew far
outweighs any financial burden to the company."

___

The captain of a Boeing 737 en route to Fort Lauderdale-Hollywood
International Airport in February said he was forced to divert in bad
weather to Palm Beach International Airport to refuel because less than
the normal amount of fuel for the flight was loaded before takeoff.

"This was probably the new fuel-saving initiative by the company
management to save money," the captain said. "North-South operation is
very unpredictable along the East Coast. I don't think this is a place
where we should skimp on fuel."

The captain said he had a "lengthy discussion" with his company's
dispatcher "relaying my opinion on the reduced fuel load and my
suggestion not to compromise fuel loads in and out of Florida." But the
captain said he received the same reduced amount on his next flight.

"So much for my professional input!" he said.

___

The captain of an Airbus 319 said he was en route to Miami, but an
unexpected rain storm forced the flight to divert to Ft. Lauderdale to
refuel "because in an attempt to abide by the new fuel conservation
procedures just adopted by the company, not enough fuel was put on the
aircraft to handle a simple delay. ... In an effort to save money, an
aircraft had to divert. The aircraft arrived at its destination two hours
late. Finally, the pilots had to get off their trip early because of fatigue
and because they would have flown nine hours and 40 minutes if they
had continued on."

___

The pilot of an Embraer 135 regional jet on an international flight in poor
weather last December complained that his dispatcher wanted to load
only an extra 10 minutes worth of fuel in case the flight had to hold
before landing.

"Ten minutes of hold fuel remained unchanged because management is
pressuring dispatch to fly with limited hold fuel to reduce 'costs,'" the
captain said. "Ten minutes of hold fuel into an airport with marginal
conditions because the dispatcher does not want his/her name on the fuel
list for the week printed and hung by management. Contacted dispatcher
and, after 'captain requested it,' fuel was begrudgingly added to 20
minutes to accurately reflect conditions. Low weather at an international
destination with few alternatives close by and no gas to hold.

"Get management out of the dispatch process and stop pressuring
dispatchers to cut fuel to below safe and normal levels. Create a profile
for holding based on reality, not bonus program of a few in management."

Though my business isn't nearly as critical, I am seeing the same thing . . . the bottom line is MONEY, no matter what the perceived reality is among those carrying out the task.

My company has a slogan "Managed services, managed better." BULL! If it requires ANY time, money or effort to do something better than the competition, forget it! The company will never expend any more than the absolute minimum required to get the job done.

Nowadays, it doesn't matter what you do for a living. Money has gotten a little too important to those who make critical decisions. MHO.

[ElfDude]

Man, this one hurts. It's days like today that I'm so glad I'm not the president.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/w ... 500362.ece

We helped in Iraq - now help us, beg Georgians

As Russia forces its neighbour to retreat from South Ossetia, the people of Gori tell our correspondent of betrayal by the West

As a Russian jet bombed fields around his village, Djimali Avago, a Georgian farmer, asked me: ?Why won?t America and Nato help us? If they won?t help us now, why did we help them in Iraq??

A similar sense of betrayal coursed through the conversations of many Georgians here yesterday as their troops retreated under shellfire and the Russian Army pressed forward to take full control of South Ossetia.

What a nightmare. The Georgains are great pro-west allies. Yet helping them means going to war with Russia.

What's the right thing for us to do? I certainly don't have the answer.

[Soup4Rush]

As of today, we're screwed out here. The perp can even SUE THE VICTIM
here.

That's why Gordon Liddy says you need to make sure that they're dead.

I know, God bless him too, but the perps' survivors are suing now...

I took some home defense firearm tactics classes. Believe me, they may
get in, but they won't get out.

like a can of raid eh Sigs..

[ElfDude]

Hoo boy... from another article:

Earlier in the day, Russian premier Vladimir Putin raised the stakes over the conflict by lashing out at the U.S. as the fighting continued to escalate in the region.

The Russian prime minister rejected calls from Georgia for a ceasefire and declared that his country would pursue its mission to its 'logical conclusion'.

A day after a face-to-face meeting with President George W. Bush in Beijing who expressed 'grave concern', Mr Putin accused the U.S. of siding with Georgia by ferrying Georgian troops from Iraq to the battle zone.

'It is a shame that some of our partners are not helping us but, essentially, are hindering us,' said Mr Putin. 'The very scale of this cynicism is astonishing.'

Partners, eh? So who are we partners with? The little freedom-loving country of Georgia or the ever more Soviet-like future czar wannabe Vladimir Putin? Is the cold war starting all over?

Again, I have no answers and find the questions genuinely troubling.