John & Martha held by police at gun point

Laurie said:
I just foof my hair, smile, and bat the eyelashes. Generally results in NO ticket :D
Click to expand...

You're much prettier than I am, even though my hair is a bit longer. Might work in Greenwich village, though. ;)
 
Here ya go David:

On June 29, 2009 McFarland and his wife Pearl were returning home from a charity fundraiser just before midnight. McFarland injured himself as he stumbled and fell down the long steps to his front door.

...His wife called paramedics, who helped him into the house and treated him. As the paramedics were leaving, two sheriff's deputies arrived.

...The deputy tells McFarland he is going to take him to the hospital because he may be suicidal.

"We want to take you to the hospital for an evaluation, you said if you had a gun, you'd shoot yourself in the head," the deputy can be heard saying.

McFarland says it was just hyperbole. He was tired and in pain.

The deputy orders him numerous times to get up or else.

...
The exchange goes on for about five minutes; his wife keeps pleading with the deputies not to Tase him, saying he has a heart condition.

Then, McFarland tells the deputies in no uncertain terms to leave.

As he gets up to go to bed, McFarland is Tased. Not once, but three times. http://abclocal.go.com/kgo/story?section=news/local/north_bay&id=7639987
Click to expand...
 
EdFred said:
Then maybe they shouldn't be police officers. And people this stupid are allowed to wield guns as part of their job?
Click to expand...

We let low time pilots fly regional jets, why not let low time cops carry guns? I bet more people have been killed by the low time jet jock doing stupid stuff than the low time cop with a gun.
 
mikea said:
Here ya go David:
Click to expand...

Great, we think you're suicidal so in order to protect you from yourself, we're going to kill you. :rolleyes2:
 
Last edited:
steingar said:
All that for violation of a FAR? Geeze, I hope they never find anything wrong with my airplane, heaven forbid catch me flying too low or too close to clouds. I can only imagine the response.
Click to expand...
No this was for violating the FRZ - the inner no-fly zone around DC. And it was after He who shall not be mentioned got famous, which is why they probably had a bit better handle on things than the early days.
 
Dean said:
We let low time pilots fly regional jets, why not let low time cops carry guns? I bet more people have been killed by the low time jet jock doing stupid stuff than the low time cop with a gun.
Click to expand...
I'm sure you're kidding, right?

One is a machine made for the sole purpose of killing people, and one is made for transportation. You don't think we should have higher standards for the first? :dunno:
 
Obi Heed Kenobi said:
People have certainly invented other uses for them.
Click to expand...
There are *many* firearms manufactured for purposes other than killing people. Very few firearms have killed a person. It's a reach to say that their primary purpose today is to kill people.

Throughout history they've been used for a lot of purposes, from hunting, to marksmanship to war to defense.
 
jesse said:
There are *many* firearms manufactured for purposes other than killing people. Very few firearms have killed a person. It's a reach to say that their primary purpose today is to kill people.

Throughout history they've been used for a lot of purposes, from hunting, to marksmanship to war to defense.
Click to expand...

Wouldn't the "war" and "defense" purposes be "killing people"?
 
:fingerwag::fingerwag::fingerwag::fingerwag::fingerwag:
Careful, your anti gun bias and total lack of knowledge is showing.

I own many guns that have never killed anything. My guns are designed to send a projectile down range into a target.

sba55 said:
I'm sure you're kidding, right?

One is a machine made for the sole purpose of killing people, and one is made for transportation. You don't think we should have higher standards for the first? :dunno:
Click to expand...
 
My guns have never killed a living creature of any sort. I've killed more creatures with a vacuum cleaner than with guns. Seriously.

In many cases, having firearms is for the same purpose as nukes in the Cold War. Are we going to use them? Not unless we have to. But if the large, growling dogs don't scare off any intruders, the "Ka-CHUNK" of my shotgun certainly would.

I don't have a problem with low-time cops having guns. I do have a problem with the (lack of) training they receive. I didn't go to formal classes, but my friend who trained me used the same training methods that the Marines used to train him. I'm far from a marksman who could win any awards, but I can kill the lumbering beast heading towards me.
 
NC Pilot said:
I own many guns that have never killed anything. My guns are designed to send a projectile down range into a target.
Click to expand...
That is what one of my friends calls, "killing paper". ;)
 
Folks who talk about guns being only for killing people in general have never used a gun nor killed a person. Therefore they are doubly inexperienced.

There are a quite a few folks (some in our group I'm sure) who are doubly experienced, and I don't know any of them who enjoyed getting the second experience, even though they probably preferred it to the alternative at the time.
 
roncachamp said:
Wouldn't the "war" and "defense" purposes be "killing people"?
Click to expand...
Depends how you look at it. Most guns haven't killed anyone and never will. Most defensive guns only will if someone goes on the offense.

But there are *TONS* of guns manufactured for the sole purpose of hunting or target shooting. Plenty of people buy, own, and use guns with "killing people" not being on their mind.

Ted Dupuis said:
I've killed more creatures with a vacuum cleaner than with guns. Seriously.
Click to expand...
As have I. Many of spiders have met their demise inside my vacuum.
 
sba55 said:
I'm sure you're kidding, right?

One is a machine made for the sole purpose of killing people, and one is made for transportation. You don't think we should have higher standards for the first? :dunno:
Click to expand...

There should be higher standards for both. The minimum standard for the commercial air transportation pilot should be 1500+ hrs and a salary that is higher than the police officers. So it goes back to the old saying, you get what you pay for, pay for crap, you get crap.
 
TMetzinger said:
Folks who talk about guns being only for killing people in general have never used a gun nor killed a person. Therefore they are doubly inexperienced.

There are a quite a few folks (some in our group I'm sure) who are doubly experienced, and I don't know any of them who enjoyed getting the second experience, even though they probably preferred it to the alternative at the time.
Click to expand...
Good. I'm very glad that I'm not experienced at killing people or using guns.

I'm also not a murderer and so I'm inexperienced there, too. Nevertheless, I don't need to have killed someone to know that doing so is wrong.
 
sba55 said:
Good. I'm very glad that I'm not experienced at killing people or using guns.

I'm also not a murderer and so I'm inexperienced there, too. Nevertheless, I don't need to have killed someone to know that doing so is wrong.
Click to expand...
That's a hell of a reach Felix. There are plenty of people that have been put into a situation where they've had to kill someone or be killed. Their actions weren't wrong and I wouldn't call them murderers. A murderer kills unlawfully. Our soldiers acting under lawful orders are not murderers nor are our citizens or police that have had to defend themselves or someone else.
 
roncachamp said:
Including those manufactured for war or defense.
Click to expand...

Including those manufactured for war or defense since on a percentage basis very few of those guns are actually used outside of training and actually inflict fatal casualties. Lots of guns are used, lots of bullets get fired, few actually do encounter flesh, few of those result in death.
 
Clark1961 said:
Including those manufactured for war or defense since on a percentage basis very few of those guns are actually used outside of training and actually inflict fatal casualties. Lots of guns are used, lots of bullets get fired, few actually do encounter flesh, few of those result in death.
Click to expand...

'Zackly.
 
jesse said:
That's a hell of a reach Felix. There are plenty of people that have been put into a situation where they've had to kill someone or be killed. Their actions weren't wrong and I wouldn't call them murderers. A murderer kills unlawfully. Our soldiers acting under lawful orders are not murderers nor are our citizens or police that have had to defend themselves or someone else.
Click to expand...

Exactly. And those that haven't been in that situation are not equipped to judge the actions of those who have.
 
Keith Lane said:
Isn't it our Second Amendment Right to "Arm Bears"?
Click to expand...

The second amendment gives us the right to bare arms - it gets hot in Washington D.C. in the summer and the founding fathers wanted everyone to be able to wear short sleeves.
 
On Tuesday or Wednesday (this week) my hangar neighbor sent an email to the Santa Barbara police department commenting on its approach to reportedly stolen aircraft. Why are we not surprised there was no response?

He also called the King Schools' info line and relayed his best wishes to Martha & John. This afternoon he received a phone call from Martha King. She called to thank him for his concern and to mention John's comment … "It was a pretty decent landing and really didn't justify that level of a ramp check."
 
alaskaflyer said:
Including juries?
Click to expand...

In my opinion, yes, but at least in most juries the combination of 12 members plus only one vote needed for acquittal helps.

Perhaps I should have stuck to my original phrasing, which was that only those who were experienced were morally fit to judge the actions of others, as opposed to legally fit.
 
TMetzinger said:
In my opinion, yes, but at least in most juries the combination of 12 members plus only one vote needed for acquittal helps.

Perhaps I should have stuck to my original phrasing, which was that only those who were experienced were morally fit to judge the actions of others, as opposed to legally fit.
Click to expand...

Aren't those with experience generally excluded from jury duty?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top