The No.1 Website for Pro Audio
 Search This Thread  Search This Forum  Search Reviews  Search Gear Database  Search Gear for sale  Search Gearslutz Go Advanced
Whats your day job? Virtual Instrument Plugins
Old 23rd March 2010
  #241
Gear Addict
 
Tim Davis's Avatar
 

I'm a graphic designer and music producer.
Old 23rd March 2010
  #242
Gear Maniac
 
rockerbruce's Avatar
 

PC tech
Old 23rd March 2010
  #243
Gear Maniac
 
ecologie's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by duffy878 View Post
part-time astronaut
part-time cowboy
full-time mad scientist

oh yeah, and video editor and that whole recording sound thing.

Buckaroo Banzai is that you?
Old 23rd March 2010
  #244
Gear Maniac
 
ecologie's Avatar
IT Tech at a university.
Old 23rd March 2010
  #245
Lives for gear
 
lain2097's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by msl View Post
..There IS a disconnect in most americans minds, the numbers don't lie just look at the figures for Canada vs US gun crime. Has nothing really to do with personal liberty, more the result of a heavily militarized society...
Our fire packing neighbours seem to feel we're (Canada) quite fruity for not being like them. However the facts don't lie. Although in their defence they're quite a lot of them running around; makes it seem worse.

In any case, if you're average piece of sh1t wants a gun (to burgle, kill, etc), he will get one.
Old 23rd March 2010
  #246
Here for the gear
 

UI designer
Old 23rd March 2010
  #247
Gear Addict
 
mamonu's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by mamonu View Post
Banking systems computer programmer.
(currently out of job but i had an interview yesterday so not for long....
i hope....)

BREAKING NEWS: No longer unemployed
Old 23rd March 2010
  #248
Gear Addict
 
peteblues's Avatar
 

mamonu: congrats
to the last 5 posters actually posting what they do. Thanks for trying to bring the thread to it's original topic.
to all the last 50 posters (or however many they were). WTF??!! Why don't you start a different thread 'Are guns good or bad', or maybe even 'which gun to buy' (afterall it's gearslutz). Maybe then you realize that you're in the wrong forum.

Peace
Old 23rd March 2010
  #249
hey nice thread, it's incredible to see such a diversity over here

i work as a researcher in audio signal processing, specialized in source separation (separating the different instruments in a mix). It's a thrilling research field
Old 23rd March 2010
  #250
Here for the gear
 
fader48's Avatar
 

DJ @ a strip club

ridiculous but gives me 4 free days a week.
Old 23rd March 2010
  #251
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by BF_ View Post
No wonder the world at large is so scared of the American right to bear arms with this kind of rampant disinformation. Cite sources to back up this claim. You won't be able to as it is pure fallacy.
TEXAS:

§9.42. Deadly force to protect property.

A person is justified in using deadly force against another to protect land or tangible, movable property:

(1) if he would be justified in using force against the other under Section 9.41; and


(2) when and to the degree he reasonably believes the deadly force is immediately necessary:

(A) to prevent the other's imminent commission of arson, burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, theft during the nighttime, or criminal mischief during the nighttime; or

(B) to prevent the other who is fleeing immediately after committing burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, or theft during the nighttime from escaping with the property; and

(3) he reasonably believes that:

(A) the land or property cannot be protected or recovered by any other means; or

(B) the use of force other than deadly force to protect or recover the land or property would expose the actor or another to a substantial risk of death or serious bodily injury.

§9.43. Protection of third person's property.

A person is justified in using force or deadly force against another to protect land or tangible, movable property of a third person if, under the circumstances as he reasonably believes them to be, the actor would be justified under Section 9.41 or 9.42 in using force or deadly force to protect his own land or property and:

(1) the actor reasonably believes the unlawful interference constitutes attempted or consummated theft of or criminal mischief to the tangible, movable property; or

(2) the actor reasonably believes that:

(A) the third person has requested his protection of the land or property;

(B) he has a legal duty to protect the third person's land or property; or

(C) the third person whose land or property he uses force or deadly force to protect is the actor's spouse, parent, or child, resides with the actor, or is under the actor's care.


Boy, 7, dies in apparent trespass shooting - Crime & courts- msnbc.com


To recapitulate: You can blow somebodys head off if you BELIEVE that this person is going to commit 'criminal mischief' on your property. Very important to note that all that matters is you BELIEVING that this person is going to rob you, or cause harm to your property and you can put out his lights for good. You can also blow his head off if he's trying to flee from your property after having robbed you. So, there you go - pure fallacy indeed! If you're an american, which i suppose you are, im surprised you're not aware of this.

To compare, I cant shoot anybody in Switzerland unless that person points a gun at me or tries to kill me... I cant just shoot somebody because he's in my house, nor can I shoot him after he's already left my house. Very different planets altogether.

To the others, apologies for continuing the derailment...
Old 23rd March 2010
  #252
Quote:
Originally Posted by peteblues View Post
to all the last 50 posters (or however many they were). WTF??!! Why don't you start a different thread 'Are guns good or bad', or maybe even 'which gun to buy' (afterall it's gearslutz). Maybe then you realize that you're in the wrong forum.
It began as a relevant work discussion between two people in the same profession. I didn't start the 2nd amendment debate, but I feel obligated to defend my opinion. I'm sure you would too. And would you be willing to serve an eviction notice on the shady end of town if you were unarmed?

As a matter of fact I served an eviction notice a couple of months ago (in the nice part of Dayton) where I was confronted by three hostile dudes who threatened to kill me. Did I pull out my gun and blow them away? No because I knew damn well they were bluffing. Did I feel safer being able to call their bluff? Abso****inlutely. As I stated earlier in the thread, I don't take enjoyment in bearing bad news to people. I usually feel terrible about it. I even tried to explain to these assholes that this action was between them, their landlord and the city of Kettering. They were still threatening my life as I walked to my car.
Old 23rd March 2010
  #253
Gear Addict
 
spectrasound's Avatar
Freelance Corporate Audio Eng.

Big, boring corp. audio gigs. Good day rates... Wouldn't be doing it if it weren't for raising 2 sons. Meetings, webcast, some audio post, conferencing.
Old 23rd March 2010
  #254
Gear Head
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by fader48 View Post
DJ @ a strip club

ridiculous but gives me 4 free days a week.
wow what a job



Quote:
Originally Posted by mamonu View Post
BREAKING NEWS: No longer unemployed
congratulations thumbsup
Old 23rd March 2010
  #255
Deleted User
Guest
Quote:
Originally Posted by kasprouch View Post
To recapitulate: You can blow somebodys head off if you BELIEVE that this person is going to commit 'criminal mischief' on your property. Very important to note that all that matters is you BELIEVING that this person is going to rob you, or cause harm to your property and you can put out his lights for good. You can also blow his head off if he's trying to flee from your property after having robbed you. So, there you go - pure fallacy indeed! If you're an american, which i suppose you are, im surprised you're not aware of this.
Both of which are a leap from simple trespassing, the offense you originally quoted.
Quote:
Originally Posted by kasprouch View Post
In the US, in some states, its a fundamental right to blow someones head off if they step on your property.
So tell me, who's statement was fallacy?
Old 23rd March 2010
  #256
Quote:
Originally Posted by plaid_emu View Post
...would you be willing to serve an eviction notice on the shady end of town if you were unarmed?
Probably not! Anyway threads doing fine, we're reasonably civilized here. Even considering we're on page 9 and everyone knows what happens to long threads!

So DJ at a strip club, cool sure beats marine biology


Old 23rd March 2010
  #257
Quote:
Originally Posted by jonnypowell View Post
fortunately crocodiles don't have a penchant for gameboys.. Just English back-packers!
I've watched the Steve Irwin show and that **** looks crazy. We've got some wicked little beasts here but you guys got mad poisonous critters. You've even got poisonous blades of grass that stick you like a hypodermic needle!

Have you ever been to Ayers Rock? I'd love to go there. You live in a beautiful place, no doubt.

Quote:
Originally Posted by msl View Post
Probably not! Anyway threads doing fine, we're reasonably civilized here. Even considering we're on page 9 and everyone knows what happens to long threads!
For sure. I'm glad when these discussions (even if slightly OT) are on the up and we can express our opinions without getting too ridiculous.
Old 23rd March 2010
  #258
Lives for gear
 

Am wondering if we got very few Pro recording engineers/producers coz this is the electronic music forum......

Audio tech teacher/Radio Station Creative Head/DJ/Composer for TV.
Old 23rd March 2010
  #259
Lives for gear
 
ChristianRock's Avatar
 

Software engineer
Old 23rd March 2010
  #260
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by BF_ View Post
Both of which are a leap from simple trespassing, the offense you originally quoted. So tell me, who's statement was fallacy?
Theres no leap at all. You're aware of the Castle Doctrine right? However you want to call out a fallacy in my statement, its a fundamental right of Texans to shoot to kill anybody in their property IF they believe that this person is threatening them or their property. Spin it how you want, but you cant change reality:

Texas Jury Acquits Man Who Forced Teens to Kneel in Front of Him and Fatally Shot One in the Back « JONATHAN TURLEY

13 yr old boy was stealing Twinky's and he was shot in the back of the head... The law allows you to shoot to kill, and walk home free as long as you can convince your peers that you did this in self-defence of yourself or your property. Hence the importance of the BELIEF. If I had to physically prove that the people I shot posed a threat to me, and not just show that I believed they were, your claim of a fallacy would make sense. In Europe we can only shoot people who try to shoot us, and when you shoot somebody, you need to physically prove that they were trying to shoot you. Thats clearly not the case here, as all thats needed is a BELIEF that this person is going to steal one of my chickens and actually get away with it, for me to be allowed to legally shoot them.

So sorry buddy, but he rest of the world thinks Americans are crazy, because they friggin are completely 100% NUTS. Just the fact that you can shoot a thief in the back of the head as he is leaving your property for having stolen some item or another is by definition completely insane.

Attorney: Pasadena man didn't intend to kill (w/911 call) | Houston & Texas News | Chron.com - Houston Chronicle

This dude went over to his neighbours house and shot two thieves in the back... both were unarmed, and he got off WITH NOTHING. Cold blooded murder of two people not posing any threat to him at all, and no legal sanctions whatsoever...

but you're right, its a fallacy.
Old 24th March 2010
  #261
Lives for gear
 
crufty's Avatar
re gun control, it varies from state to state. but in texas, the whole state is basically packing heat, so mind your p's and q's, esp as you wander out of the city.
Old 24th March 2010
  #262
Deleted User
Guest
As there is clearly no having a rational discussion on this point with you kasprouch; sure, whatever you say. But in all of the cases you have linked there was more going on than simple trespassing.
Old 24th March 2010
  #263
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by BF_ View Post
As there is clearly no having a rational discussion on this point with you kasprouch; sure, whatever you say. But in all of the cases you have linked there was more going on than simple trespassing.
I understand what you mean with not having a rational discussion as you are somewhat accepting that shooting a thief is rational. You're also accepting that shooting an unarmed person is rational, so theres a clear issue in what we define as normal, considering the discussion is why other people think that some Americans bearing arms is a really, really bad idea.

An unarmed person being shot with lethal force, and killed, is considered murder and 'insane' where i come from. But seemingly not in your books - was shooting a 7 yr old off-roading with his parents for tresspassing a case of aggravated assault or murder? Is shooting a 13 yr old in the back of his head for stealing a Twinky self-defence or murder? Is shooting two unarmed thieves who robbed your neighbours house self-defence or murder?

The Castle Doctrine and 'rational' dont even fall in the same universe of logic... But all these courts seem to use this rationale as valid reasoning to acquit every single one of these murderers whenever its questioned.

You're clearly avoiding the reality of what type of madness and leniency these laws are giving people to kill at will... This has nothing to do with the right to bear arms, which brings me back to my original point: it has to do with the culture surrounding those bearing the arms. And in the case of Texas, the legal promotion of the use of arms for less than acceptable, or normal reasons...

either way, apologies for hijack.
Old 24th March 2010
  #264
Lives for gear
 
pinkerton's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by kasprouch View Post
Theres no leap at all. You're aware of the Castle Doctrine right? However you want to call out a fallacy in my statement, its a fundamental right of Texans to shoot to kill anybody in their property IF they believe that this person is threatening them or their property. Spin it how you want, but you cant change reality.
please bear in mind that a person who takes advantage of this law must usually defend themselves in court. at least that's happened in every case i've seen. it's not like they just get to shoot in all directions and just walk away and have a nice life (that is the criminal's job)

it's not like you can count on 911 or anything.
Old 24th March 2010
  #265
Lives for gear
 
crufty's Avatar
rural justice is pro-rural*

the more you is, the more you is...and the more you ain't, the more you ain't. makes a big difference in a court of law when the man in question is being judged by 12 you-is's, and the plantiff is a dead you ain't.

anyway no more /tangent from me, start a thread in moanzone!
Old 24th March 2010
  #266
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by pinkerton View Post
please bear in mind that a person who takes advantage of this law must usually defend themselves in court. at least that's happened in every case i've seen. it's not like they just get to shoot in all directions and just walk away and have a nice life (that is the criminal's job)

it's not like you can count on 911 or anything.
Of course, that goes without saying - just pointing out that there is actually a law to be taken advantage of to get yourself off from cold-blooded murder. Its extremely easy to convince 12 of your peers that shooting whoever you did was a good idea... 'I was scared and thought that he may hurt me'.....'it could have been you!'

For me, thats f'd up.

Quote:
Originally Posted by crufty View Post
makes a big difference in a court of law when the man in question is being judged by 12 you-is's, and the plantiff is a dead you ain't.
exactly...
Old 24th March 2010
  #267
Lives for gear
 
pinkerton's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by kasprouch View Post
Theres no leap at all. You're aware of the Castle Doctrine right? However you want to call out a fallacy in my statement, its a fundamental right of Texans to shoot to kill anybody in their property IF they believe that this person is threatening them or their property. Spin it how you want, but you cant change reality:

Texas Jury Acquits Man Who Forced Teens to Kneel in Front of Him and Fatally Shot One in the Back « JONATHAN TURLEY

13 yr old boy was stealing Twinky's and he was shot in the back of the head... The law allows you to shoot to kill, and walk home free as long as you can convince the police that you did this in self-defence of yourself or your property. Hence the importance of the BELIEF. If I had to physically prove that the people I shot posed a threat to me, and not just show that I believed they were, your claim of a fallacy would make sense. In Europe we can only shoot people who try to shoot us, and when you shoot somebody, you need to physically prove that they were trying to shoot you. Thats clearly not the case here, as all thats needed is a BELIEF that this person is going to steal one of my chickens and actually get away with it, for me to be allowed to legally shoot them.

So sorry buddy, but he rest of the world thinks Americans are crazy, because they friggin are completely 100% NUTS. Just the fact that you can shoot a thief in the back of the head as he is leaving your property for having stolen some item or another is by definition completely insane.

Attorney: Pasadena man didn't intend to kill (w/911 call) | Houston & Texas News | Chron.com - Houston Chronicle

This dude went over to his neighbours house and shot two thieves in the back... both were unarmed, and he got off WITH NOTHING. Cold blooded murder of two people not posing any threat to him at all, and no legal sanctions whatsoever...

but you're right, its a fallacy.
ha. i'd like to see you go live in Laredo for a few years and not shoot anybody. that place is, sorry for anyone who lives there, a ****hole. constantly under threat from drug violence. it's insane NOT to own a gun there or Brownsville or any other border town. the United States isn't all shopping malls and white homes.
Old 24th March 2010
  #268
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by pinkerton View Post
ha. i'd like to see you go live in Laredo for a few years and not shoot anybody. that place is, sorry for anyone who lives there, a ****hole. constantly under threat from drug violence. it's insane NOT to own a gun there or Brownsville or any other border town. the United States isn't all shopping malls and white homes.
Now you're confusing the problem between gun ownership and actually shooting people. Does Laredo's drug violence make it okay to shoot children? Was the 13 yr old twinky-thief a Mexican druglord? Or is it generally just okay to shoot people when the situations tense and you cant tell who's who anymore?

Its not an excuse for people to be insane, and its even worse when the law justifies their actions. Just saying, when people think that some Americans are nuts, theyre not making **** up... And dont worry, everybody here is smart enough to know that the Americans arent alone in their insanity... Its just mildly excessive for a so called first world country.
Old 24th March 2010
  #269
Lives for gear
 
pinkerton's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by kasprouch View Post
Of course, that goes without saying - just pointing out that there is actually a law to be taken advantage of to get yourself off from cold-blooded murder. Its extremely easy to convince 12 of your peers that shooting whoever you did was a good idea... 'I was scared and thought that he may hurt me'.....'it could have been you!'

For me, thats f'd up.
if murder (which does not equal homcide) is being passed off as self defense under this law then it's a failure of the courts, who interpret the laws, and not the law itself. and since in court it is a matter of convincing peers, then it's really more to do with what the status quo is among the voting bloc in your general area. and in that case, it won't matter what the law says, people will get a pass if they impress the jury enough and get sent away if they come off as a skeez. looks like this was already illustrated earlier, so forgive me. but to reiterate this is ultimately a failure of the public to itself. and speaks more about how we run our courts than just this law.

really, i think more than anything, that the castle doctrine is a necessary evil due to the choices our previous generations have made. police are not legally bound to protect us, which has legal precedence. our governments refuse to recognize that prohibition of drugs creates black markets and thus more violence. when we do get around to arresting some teenager for weed possession during a traffic stop, he ends up in a system that is very good at creating hardened criminals unless he has a mom and dad with enough money to buy his way out of that system. our system already promotes criminality among the public and apathy from our supposed protection and is basially building itself into a police state, so cutting off our right to defend ourselves is the truly insane option.
Old 24th March 2010
  #270
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by pinkerton View Post
if murder (which does not equal homcide) is being passed off as self defense under this law then it's a failure of the courts, who interpret the laws, and not the law itself. and since in court it is a matter of convincing peers, then it's really more to do with what the status quo is among the voting bloc in your general area. and in that case, it won't matter what the law says, people will get a pass if they impress the jury enough and get sent away if they come off as a skeez.

really, i think more than anything, that the castle doctrine is a necessary evil due to the choices our previous generations have made. police are not legally bound to protect us, which has legal precedence. our governments refuse to recognize that prohibition of drugs creates black markets and thus more violence. when we do get around to arresting some teenager for weed possession during a traffic stop, he ends up in a system that is very good at creating hardened criminals unless he has a mom and dad with enough money to buy his way out of that system. our system already promotes criminality among the public and apathy from our supposed protection and is basially building itself into a police state, so cutting off our right to defend ourselves is the truly insane option.
I agree 110%. As long as its defence. In so many of these cases though, including the use of lethal force by the police, self-preservation had nothing to do with it... madness and paranoia though, clearly did.

When the system fails to differentiate between the two, then you have a serious problem - exactly like you described with the misinterpretations.
Post Reply

Welcome to the Gearslutz Pro Audio Community!

Registration benefits include:
  • The ability to reply to and create new discussions
  • Access to members-only giveaways & competitions
  • Interact with VIP industry experts in our guest Q&As
  • Access to members-only sub forum discussions
  • Access to members-only Chat Room
  • Get INSTANT ACCESS to the world's best private pro audio Classifieds for only USD $20/year
  • Promote your eBay auctions and Reverb.com listings for free
  • Remove this message!
You need an account to post a reply. Create a username and password below and an account will be created and your post entered.


 
 
Slide to join now Processing…
Thread Tools
Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Similar Threads
Thread
Thread Starter / Forum
Replies
perple / Work In Progress / Advice Requested / Show and Tell / Artist Showcase / Mix-Offs
2
ScottBrio / Gear free zone - shoot the breeze
0
Jackie Moon / The Good News Channel
8
riecespieces / Rap + Hip Hop engineering and production
111
inlinenl / So much gear, so little time
3

Forum Jump
Forum Jump