I'll stand down as this is no longer in the danger zone. You rock lucky760.

You too newt




Now I have a great story tell my grandchildren.

Can anyone who knows close protection comment on Budd's leaving his VIP to go after the one sniper he's seen, on the basis of a quick glimpse with his mobile phone?

I would have thought that his overriding priority would be to fully extract his VIP from the danger zone.

Yeah, I don't buy it. Most nearly everyone, especially in urban areas and even more especially so around ATM machines have massive danger zones/spheres. That guy would have felt/heard that guy's presence when he was walking up. And who reads shit on the ATM that isn't on the screen, anyway? No one.

I, like most, don't need absolute proof, proving that kind of thing unless it's ridiculously done in writing is impossible. The appearance is enough, but more than that, it's clear, I have no question about it and would require some incredible evidence to the contrary to think differently at this point. It looks like a duck, it quacks like a duck, it swims like a duck, it flies like a duck, it lays eggs like a duck...I'm just going to go ahead and call it a duck. DWS cheated and lied to force a Clinton nomination. The DNC purged it's voter rolls, gave Sanders zero support and actually worked against him while doing whatever the Clinton campaign asked them to, no matter how biased it was, under her leadership, then she was given an important job in the campaign and will likely get a cabinet position for her immoral, unethical work done for Clinton's benefit. If that's not quid quo pro, it doesn't exist.

Yes, Clinton and her campaign have had zero insight on how they appear, and are still indignant about people not just loving her because....woman.

Clinton helped put her in position to help win the election, then hired her when that work got her fired. her job WAS to regulate elections to be fair, and her complete and utter failure in doing that job is why she has a job as the head of Clinton's campaign today....and is one reason Clinton will lose.

Perhaps a few might say that, they're wrong. It was stolen by every means possible, no matter how unethical it was to purge voter rolls in poor areas but not affluent areas, or to close most polls in poor areas and limit the hours of the few left opened, but actually increase the hours and number of polls in affluent areas. He lost for a number of reasons, but largely because the DNC did their job for Clinton and worked actively against him the entire election while smiling and lying to our faces about 'fairness' and 'impartiality'. No leap at all to make that claim, my feet don't have to leave the ground.

Yes, since she REWARDED DWS's guilt with a top level position in her campaign and a promise of more important jobs to come, that guilt transfers to Clinton. Had she come out publicly and said 'this behavior is inappropriate, unethical, and I won't have anything to do with a person who clearly has no respect for the rules/laws' she might not be so guilty...but she did the opposite.

Um...didn't Bush himself say her name in a public interview? That's how I recall the Valerie Plame incident.

I'm talking about a person who's job it was to be impartial who was clearly heavily biased and lied about it for a full year publicly....and the person she performed these unethical acts for that rewarded her after it became public.

You're helping Trump win because Clinton can't, and shoving her down our throats as the DNC and her supporters have guarantees a Trump win. She's unelectable, and her supporters have blinders on to her myriad of faults and flaws.

In this country, we are supposed to vote for a person we want to win, not against someone. If people did that, there might be a chance at not having Trump, but because Dumbocrats and Retardicans both vote against the other, and every idiot follows along, we get this.

"Most qualified? Most experienced?" Not more so than Johnson, who has more experience actually governing than she does by far. You might not agree with his policies, but he's not immoral, not unethical, not hated by a majority of Americans, not batshit crazy, and is a candidate. he only has less chance of winning because people think like you and want to vote for someone who sucks ass because they're against someone who is an ass. That leaves us all covered in shit, no matter who wins.
Sanders has far more experience governing than she does. What the hell are you talking about? She has one thing going for her, her stint as Sec of State, but her record there is abysmal and not a positive for most Americans when seen as a whole. She has no experience in domestic policy beyond her short time as a senator, while Sanders has been one for how long? Again, what the hell are you talking about?

Rewarding incontrovertibly unethical behavior with a top position says everything that need be said.

OK, if you want the most reliable president, why didn't you vote for Sanders, who actually keeps his stated positions and votes on them, completely unlike Clinton.

I agree with your characterization, but it's the Clinton campaign that's the rolling dumpster fire and the Sanders campaign that was a Honda Accord that got hit by the rolling dumpster fire and pushed off the road. Now it's a rolling dumpster fire VS a leaky 40000 gallon septic tank, and they're both poised at the top of the hill with all of us stuck in the danger zone.

Side note...why on earth were they both staying on the traffic side of the stop? I never heard the officer instruct him to move away from traffic, which I see as the norm, and also the officer kept himself in the danger zone. That was odd to me.

lucky760's reasoning is sound.

Anyone that has researched and/or trained on weapon on weapon defense, in this case knife vs. firearm knows the Tueller's Drill. It has been a standard for over thirty years. Basically,

The Tueller Drill is a self-defense training exercise to prepare against a short-range knife attack when armed only with a holstered handgun.
Sergeant Dennis Tueller, of the Salt Lake City, Utah Police Department wondered how quickly an attacker with a knife could cover 21 feet (6.4 m), so he timed volunteers as they raced to stab the target. He determined that it could be done in 1.5 seconds. These results were first published as an article in SWAT magazine in 1983 and in a police training video by the same title, "How Close is Too Close?"[1]
A defender with a gun has a dilemma. If he shoots too early, he risks being charged with murder. If he waits until the attacker is definitely within striking range so there is no question about motives, he risks injury and even death. The Tueller experiments quantified a "danger zone" where an attacker presented a clear threat.[2]
The Tueller Drill combines both parts of the original time trials by Tueller. There are several ways it can be conducted:[3]
The "attacker and shooter are positioned back-to-back. At the signal, the attacker sprints away from the shooter, and the shooter unholsters his gun and shoots at the target 21 feet (6.4 m) in front of him. The attacker stops as soon as the shot is fired. The shooter is successful only if his shot is good and if the runner did not cover 21 feet (6.4 m).
A more stressful arrangement is to have the attacker begin 21 feet (6.4 m) behind the shooter and run towards the shooter. The shooter is successful only if he was able take a good shot before he is tapped on the back by the attacker.
If the shooter is armed with only a training replica gun, a full-contact drill may be done with the attacker running towards the shooter. In this variation, the shooter should practice side-stepping the attacker while he is drawing the gun.
Mythbusters covered the drill in the 2012 episode "Duel Dilemmas". At 20 feet the gun wielder was able to shoot the charging knife attacker just as he reached the shooter. At shorter distances the knife wielder was always able to stab prior to being shot. (Wikipedia)

That a firearm, particularly a handgun, will instantly incapacitate an individual is not a working concept and is fallacious. Variables such as adrenaline and drugs are attributable. Shot placement is trumps. Anything but a CNS. central nervous system, shot is not efficacious in safely stopping the threat. Not an easy or sure target sans movement, stress, etc.

Law enforcement put their lives and safety in harm's way every day. They are not there to die needlessly. An individual with suicide by cop or a LEO's death in mind is a serious threat to be dealt with with prejudice.

By the way, research knife wounds vs. handgun wounds. There is much data, ER, medical examiner, law enforcement. The deadly seriousness of knife wounds are well documented.

Tasers...I would not want to risk my life behind one or anyone about whom I care.

OR, he was surprised after not having read the 'rules' at his rapid trip into chicco's danger zone...

Your video, Danger Zone: Funniest Archer Moments, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

Danger Zone!

The launch is worth watching.

But the Danger Zone music kicks in at 3:30 in a neat way. This is a well done ride along.

What a pile of crap. Firstly, shes not saying praise jesus, Its a commonly used phrase which youre bending to spout your own personal agenda. This isnt the anti- god topic some sifters try to turn everything into, so quit trying.

Secondly, i have two kids and have lived in apartments, if either ended up standing on an a/c unit a slap would be the LEAST i would deserve, and that goes double for a 7 year old with special needs.

Do you have any kids? If so, how the fuck do you NOT consider balconies and windows as danger zones in HIGH RISE apartments? How many kids have you read about falling from them? There was one last week here. The very first thing i did before we moved in was mesh the balcony railings, seal the window latches and give the ground level windows a good kicking. What you DONT do is play the percentages or even worse, not even consider it. Thats how you end up with a 7 year old standing on an a/c unit. *SLAP*

>> ^spoco2:

>> ^thumpa28:
Yeah, the theological angle is the one to concentrate on, how fucking predictably boring. Back on topic, the mother needs a slap.

It's worth mentioning, it really is. It's a big fucking problem that people have a disconnect that goes
"Holy crap, my daughter almost died, that man was amazingly good and quick and threw himself into harm's way to save my child"
"Thank God for that"
No, thank the man, thank him, thank his upbringing that he wouldn't stand by, thank his reflexes, thank others that brought his attention to your daughter. Do not thank a mythical being.
If you're going to say it was god that stepped in and 'saved' your daughter, why don't you also blame god for letter her get out there in the first place, or giving her autism such that she would do such a thing?
It IS a problem because it's just an excuse for people to turn off most of their brain and answer anything with 'it's god's will'... And this leads to all sorts of problems as people who do this never bother to look at root causes, or actual solutions, or anything else, because 'things are just like that because of god's will', or they don't do things because 'god will set it right if he feels the need'.
And then you go and say the mother needs a slap... have you looked after an autistic child? Have you looked after ANY child? Do you know how easy it is to let your guard slip, even if just for a minute, and to have them do something you hadn't even considered was a possibility?

With the right marketing what's old is new again.>> ^poolcleaner:

I used to get criticized for using Old Spice because it was an old man's product. Now it's cool?! WTF

Do you mean Tubedub?>> ^sixshot:

Quick! Someone tubechop this with "Danger Zone"!

Quick! Someone tubechop this with "Danger Zone"!

*IF* one of these events were to happen in the US. No nuclear plant that has ever been in question will be allowed to continue operation. It will give fuel to the fight against the NRC and the plants in question beyond a reasonable doubt that the concerns were valid.

Now.....that's where I think the whole NRC+Plant buddy relationship doesn't make sense. Because for them to remain buddies, someone has to be getting paid. So they should be looking for the pay offs or "job opportunities" people at the NRC are receiving instead of them being just poor at their jobs.

If the NRC can't inspect the plants in their entirety on some regular basis, how they can appear on camera and claim everything is OK? You'd have to be an idiot because if it happened in your lifetime, your life would be over...people would own everything you've ever worked for due to your blind eye.

And the plants......well we know their thinking. Money. But if anything ever did happen, they'd be done. They'd all be paid and probably living far away from the danger zones because they know better......but those companies would be done.

I just don't see the reason people are all "short term thinking" EVERYTHING anymore.