Yeah, 20000ft is roughly 6km. The air density is about 1/2 but from what I can determine that doesn't equal 1/2 air resistance, but something more like 90-95% air resistance of sea level.

Having said that, I haven't studied aerospace engineering, so I might be getting the details wrong.

There are definitely some minor advantages to building on a mountainside, but I don't think they outweigh logistical difficulties under normal circumstances.

The idea has a good bit of scifi (and probably scientific) history behind it though. I believe Heinlein used a railgun cargo launcher from the moon in Moon is a Harsh Mistress and a mountainside sled rocket in one of his earlier books.

Project Rho is a great resource for hard scifi and rocketry research for writers. http://www.projectrho.com/public_html/rocket/surfaceorbit.php is the link to a page that discusses maglev, railguns and rocketsleds.

here's a working link: https://vimeo.com/579667076

Eh, it's debatable still

Here's the WI state code as that would apply here
https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/statutes/statutes/939/iii/48

===================================
Some likely applicable law from that link
From SUBCHAPTER III
DEFENSES TO CRIMINAL LIABILITY
===================================
A person is privileged to threaten or intentionally use force against another for the purpose of preventing or terminating what the person reasonably believes to be an unlawful interference with his or her person by such other person. The actor may intentionally use only such force or threat thereof as the actor reasonably believes is necessary to prevent or terminate the interference. The actor may not intentionally use force which is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm unless the actor reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself.
-------------------------------------------
> It's not up to the witnesses to determine if the actions were reasonable or not, that's a question for the jury.

====================================================
====================================================

"engage in unlawful conduct likely to provoke others to attack"

"Provocation affects the privilege of self-defense as follows:
(a) A person who engages in unlawful conduct of a type likely to provoke others to attack him or her and thereby does provoke an attack is not entitled to claim the privilege of self-defense against such attack, except when the attack which ensues is of a type causing the person engaging in the unlawful conduct to reasonably believe that he or she is in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm. In such a case, the person engaging in the unlawful conduct is privileged to act in self-defense, but the person is not privileged to resort to the use of force intended or likely to cause death to the person's assailant unless the person reasonably believes he or she has exhausted every other reasonable means to escape from or otherwise avoid death or great bodily harm at the hands of his or her assailant.
---------------------------------------------------------------

>excerpted/emphasized (tldnr)
>"engages in unlawful conduct of a type likely to provoke others to attack...is NOT entitled to claim the privilege of self-defense...person is NOT privileged to resort to the use of force intended or likely to cause death to the person's assailant UNLESS the person reasonably believes he or she has exhausted every other reasonable means to escape

============================
============================



He was able to run away... And while someone shot into the air they didn't shoot at HIM or point a gun at him. And the person who shot into the air isn't the one who lunged at him.

Seriously, what kind of world do you want to live in @bobknight33 ?? You want MF 17 year olds to be able to walk around with assault rifles and if you stutter-step at the wrong moment they can vigilante justice your ass ? And if that happens well they can just say

Bob,

"as else mentioned" Evidence wise though, it looks like self defense, after breaking many laws and putting himself in harms way, is still factually part of the night."

This is completely correct; however, it is not a viable defense. You cannot go "looking for trouble" (trust me, I know this one).

Here's a link to a counter-argument, out of fairness sake:

https://www.ojp.gov/ncjrs/virtual-library/abstracts/looking-trouble-framing-and-dignitary-interest-law-self-defense

This part is what will send Baby Rambo to Fed for the next billion years:

"This means that any lawful intent or behavior that may have contributed to the confrontation should not be used to undermine the claim of self-defense."

Please note the "lawful intent or behavior" part. Everything Rittenhouse did was illegal up until the point when he went postal on innocent, if rowdy, protestors. The prosecution is going to nail him to the cross and he won't be coming back in three days.

Since links are not allowed, Go to YouTube and search Deconstructing A Myth: Sloopy Girl
If you still want to believe it is Liz, well, that certainly is your right but already thousands have seen it in a week and agreed. It is Lisa.

I really didn't bother clicking it, what does the link claim?

Yep...who would have guessed that when you abandon reason, logic, fact, truth, and civility you end up being wrong most of the time!?

I do not bother with random links provided by those already proven to be untrustworthy.

Have a nice day

Aaaahahahaha! Nice projection....and another failing grade in English. Want to compare transcripts? I know we can only go to 8th grade before yours ends....too bad, I was still getting all "A"s with maybe one "B" in PE then. I would suggest we compare SAT scores, but you indicated you didn't get that far.

I did not catch your cranial rectosis, thanks for the concern, out of character though it may be.

We all know that if you could back up your nonsense with anything that resembles a fact or citation, you would. You never can, and when you try you invariably either turn out to have totally misread what you cite, you cite propaganda sites rated at 5 Pinocchios, or you link to spoof sites based in Columbia that try to install viruses.

We all also know you only make these public insults to try to feel like a big boy, in private you were usually far more reasonable, civil, sometimes even flattering, and privately you could admit you were wrong, not in public though, there you're an uncivil moron spouting insane conspiracy theories and utter nonsense then hiding when challenged, or at best replying with factless, pointless, preschool level snark, and since you said you support lying in any circumstance if it helps your argument or cause, including under oath in the highest court in the land by the top government official, I won't speak to you in private. This made you a constant and consistent unapologetic liar that can never back up their nonsense because there is no corroboration or verification possible for blatant lies, so instead you answer with dumb insults.

At least I offer a fact based (often with citations) argument when I insult your lack of intelligence, education, knowledge, logic, honesty, and civility. You cannot say the same, because you never have a fact based argument to offer, and consequently you are totally incapable of insulting me. D'oh!

So sorry I use fact and citations to disprove your insane infantile nonsense constantly, and don't slink away into the shadows when challenged because my positions are reasoned and considered, and can be logically and factually corroborated, not just insulting preschool nonsense based on wishful thinking like you spout.

I didn't edit a thing. You must have added them after I quoted you and obliterated your original post.

There have been no murders in the billions, so I won't bother with your links that must include future climate change deaths if it claims billions killed.

Come on, accuse me of editing out the additions you made to this post I quoted too.

Go troll elsewhere. It's obvious you have no legitimate point and are just making up nonsense to argue.

So, to paraphrase, Forget legality, forget definition, forget reality, I want to call it murder so I will.
What utter infantile nonsense.

Texas doesn't call it murder, so they can't execute anyone. In fact, if I read it right, they just fine you like a traffic ticket. The legal consequences prove you're alone in calling it murder, the fact that you don't think execution is the right outcome for every person involved from the doctors and nurses to the taxi drivers all the way to the mothers should be executed proves you don't think it's murder either, you just like to exaggerate.

The unborn are not human beings by definition or by law, not even by religious definition or law, so murder is impossible. That is by all definitions and by all laws. Get over it. You're simply wrong and have to fudge definitions, the law, religious teachings, and all logic and reason to make the arguments you're making.

It's clear you didn't read the article @noseeem linked for you. You really should.

think this is a link to the rest of the story...

https://www.kxan.com/news/three-arrested-after-stealing-fedex-truck-in-texarkana/

[newsflare link said it happen in TX. the provided article mentions TX and a dark van (noticed one on left side, pulling away from the van in the video) so am at least 51% certain]

at least the driver didn't try to catch them in progress otherwise could have gone down like this...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4aZHL7M1onQ

I posted a reply on @ant's page, but basically they added an embed option to the share link under the videos. I'm still trying to get &Mute=0 to work because the sound is off by default.

Working link here:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rNxeKRyq8o4