13511

[ATTACH=full]2009._xfImport[/ATTACH]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=id=Yh3ml8gzrd4;list=RDQMZqw0VfcVp0E

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=id=Ro_nC-E668A;list=RDQMZqw0VfcVp0E

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nOl_XkwhDYM View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nOl_XkwhDYM

[ATTACH=full]2005._xfImport[/ATTACH]

[ATTACH=full]2003._xfImport[/ATTACH]

On a related note [ATTACH=full]2002._xfImport[/ATTACH]

Pretty sure their belief system is somewhat contrarian to those that use that phrase. Of course, you have already lost any argument since he who brings Nazism into any argument has automatically forfeited.

I've seen several different poles I wouldn't mind touching (but the wife would probably not appreciate it!) All different sizes! If you want more examples, feel free to visit https://www.polishhearts.co.uk/en/storczyki :p And here are a few just for Tool

If wanting to keep anything for "posterity" then one needs to be sure to submit it to the wayback machine.

Removing (or preventing) the tracking of any stupidity he may show in public? I personally won't use any of his stuff - just on general principles. Also, I generally don't need to use remove-ons (which he was well known for). Many of his add-ons are simple enough to replicate without needing an add-on to do it. He's probably learning, but doesn't want to reveal his level of incompetence (at that time) to the general public.

[ATTACH=full]1998._xfImport[/ATTACH]

[ATTACH=full]1997._xfImport[/ATTACH]

[ATTACH=full]1996._xfImport[/ATTACH]

You going to be on the front lines shouting that... or hiding in the bathroom?

Actually that was one of the reasons... he also had performance related issues apparently. On a non-related note.... the shooting I was involved in resulted in me having to turn my duty weapon (self-purchased) over to our investigators to be sent to the lab for forensics.... and me having to go out and purchase another $800 pistol to temporarily replace it to carry on duty.

Feds are bringing their own charges against him currently from what I remember.

As I said, I don't know what California's involuntary manslaughter statute requires to prove, but I do know that what happened would be covered under Texas negligent homicide statute. Do not know if California has anything similar. If so, the charge that they (the DA's office) pursued was really an overreach in the case. Sometimes bad shit happens to good people. Was Zarate an idiot? Most likely. But people watch TV/movies and think they know all about firearms and will not show them the respect that they really require. They (firearms) are simply tools... dangerous tools yes, but still tools. That's like blaming the wood chipper for ripping ones arm off when one was stupid enough to stick it inside when running.

Didn't keep up with it closely, but think he was handling it and "it just fired". I think only one round discharged and it hit the concrete and ricocheted into her back.

Nope, jury also found him not guilty. Whether you agree with it or not matters not - when a jury finds one not guilty of murder they didn't commit one (that was provable beyond a reasonable doubt). Now, both DID commit a homicide. But homicide also includes justifiable deaths (in the case of the officer as the jury apparently determined). From the case of Zarate, I was reasonably certain they would not get a murder conviction. The proving of the intentional aspect of the shooting was going to be the problem, especially if they had the evidence that it was a ricochet round that hit her. I don't know what their involuntary manslaughter charge (the code) consists of, but I do know that his negligent action would most likely have resulted in a conviction under Texas law for criminally negligent homicide.

Apparently a jury of his peers disagreed so no, he didn't commit murder.

[ATTACH=full]1995._xfImport[/ATTACH]

Really? <from Wikipedia> Looks like to me Congress said they wanted a public law passed, voted for it and was successful and 3 presidents failed to implement it (which due to the constitutional aspect they had the right to do) and the 4th one did (while fulfilling a promise he made). Can you point me to the international law that says that a country HAS to refuse to recognize Jerusalem as the capital of Israel? The US was NOT a participant (nor signatory) of the Balfour Declaration. And no, I don't give 2 shits whether other countries want (or will) recognize it... that's their choice as recognizing it is the choice of the current President of the US.