Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag. (show it anyway)

Oh! you're right. Great movie though.>> ^Deano:

>> ^dag:
Master and Commander was good.>> ^Deano:
I'd argue Scott has not made a decent film since Gladiator.
All of this ties into my impressions of the trailer. I've not seen it but in some respects it reminds me of Alien and that bit with Theron wielding a flame-thrower (always a fucking flame-thrower) looked quite funny. In Alien we simply had Ripley refusing admittance.
One review said something that made sense; it's good but it's made for the multi-plex.
Like a lot of art these days there are grandiose claims but the commercial reality intrudes and undermines.


Just checked that he's a producer on that one but did not direct.

>> ^dag:

Master and Commander was good.>> ^Deano:
I'd argue Scott has not made a decent film since Gladiator.
All of this ties into my impressions of the trailer. I've not seen it but in some respects it reminds me of Alien and that bit with Theron wielding a flame-thrower (always a fucking flame-thrower) looked quite funny. In Alien we simply had Ripley refusing admittance.
One review said something that made sense; it's good but it's made for the multi-plex.
Like a lot of art these days there are grandiose claims but the commercial reality intrudes and undermines.



Just checked that he's a producer on that one but did not direct.

>> ^dag:

Master and Commander was good.>> ^Deano:
I'd argue Scott has not made a decent film since Gladiator.
All of this ties into my impressions of the trailer. I've not seen it but in some respects it reminds me of Alien and that bit with Theron wielding a flame-thrower (always a fucking flame-thrower) looked quite funny. In Alien we simply had Ripley refusing admittance.
One review said something that made sense; it's good but it's made for the multi-plex.
Like a lot of art these days there are grandiose claims but the commercial reality intrudes and undermines.



Ah that's one I have not seen. Wonder if it's on Netflix?

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag. (show it anyway)

Master and Commander was good.>> ^Deano:

I'd argue Scott has not made a decent film since Gladiator.
All of this ties into my impressions of the trailer. I've not seen it but in some respects it reminds me of Alien and that bit with Theron wielding a flame-thrower (always a fucking flame-thrower) looked quite funny. In Alien we simply had Ripley refusing admittance.
One review said something that made sense; it's good but it's made for the multi-plex.
Like a lot of art these days there are grandiose claims but the commercial reality intrudes and undermines.

I'd argue Scott has not made a decent film since Gladiator.

All of this ties into my impressions of the trailer. I've not seen it but in some respects it reminds me of Alien and that bit with Theron wielding a flame-thrower (always a fucking flame-thrower) looked quite funny. In Alien we simply had Ripley refusing admittance.

One review said something that made sense; it's good but it's made for the multi-plex.

Like a lot of art these days there are grandiose claims but the commercial reality intrudes and undermines.

If the intruder wasn't so belligerent, our boy wouldn't have to be as forceful in order to put him in his place.

>> ^Lawdeedaw:

A stereo thief hit a guy with a bag of like 6 pounds. He got stabbed to death. The stabber got off. The stabber had been the one to chase him down... SYoG...

Dunno how anyone can see stuff like that transpire and think it's a good idea to let someone go under that law who actively pursues and kills.

The Wiki on SYG has this blurb:

Stand your ground laws are frequently criticized and called "shoot first" laws by critics, including the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence.[36] In Florida, the law has resulted in self-defense claims tripling, with all but one of those killed unarmed.[37][36] The law's critics argue that Florida's law makes it very difficult to prosecute cases against people who shoot others and then claim self-defense. The shooter can argue they felt threatened, and in most cases, the only witness who could have argued otherwise is the victim who was shot and killed. The Florida law has been used to excuse neighborhood brawls, bar fights, road rage, and even street gang violence.[36] Before passage of the law, Miami police chief John F. Timoney called the law unnecessary and dangerous in that "[w]hether it's trick-or-treaters or kids playing in the yard of someone who doesn't want them there or some drunk guy stumbling into the wrong house, you're encouraging people to possibly use deadly physical force where it shouldn't be used." This is in reference to Sarah McKinley, a teen widow with her infant child, who shot an intruder who broke through the front door. The intruder was apparently drunk, screaming and at the wrong house


Self Defense claims tripling should be indicative that you got some problems on your hands. And I doubt they count these cases as "crimes", making their crime rate lower. Reinforcing the idea that the law is sound.


And I'll just note, I've never heard of your stabbing case prior to you mentioning it. Whether it's got no racial elements to exploit or no gun involved to exploit for news, I don't know. But people care a lot less if it's anything but a gun involved.

It is absolutely coercion.

In this job market people feel absolutely compelled to answer any question asked--or give up anything they ask for. And corporations are using this to intrude into everyones lives and history.

And, I'm sure that telling corporations not to spend all that time, money, and manpower checking every little thing that applicants have ever done in their lifetimes is a huge "burden".

I don't wonder why the job market sucks right now--it's because the powerful want it that way.

Below is a copy of the email I sent to Vic Toews, the sponsor of this terrible legislation. I again suggest that all thoughtful Canadians contact their Member of Parliament to voice their concerns.

MP's email addresses and other contact information can be found here: http://www.parl.gc.ca/MembersOfParliament/MainMPsCompleteList.aspx?TimePeriod=Current&Language=E

Dear Mr. Toews;

Thanks for taking the time to send an automated response to the automated email I had previously sent to you. In contrast to our previous correspondenced, this email represents my considered position and thoughts as a citizen of Canada, and not those of a robo-responder, nor of a political staff.

In response to the "Myths and Facts" listed below your correspondence, I respectfully submit that I don't buy a word of it. There's a common expression used to describe information which is not representative of the truth, which I'm sure that, coming as you do from an agricultural area like Provencher, you are quite familiar with. It's commonly used to fertilize pasture-land.

Bill C-30 is a poorly written, overly broad and dangerous piece of legislation. One thing which has been demonstrated over and over again is that when delegated powers that intrude on privacy, those in authority inevitably will abuse them. I have no doubt that the power resulting from C-30 will likewise be abused, and that it will, contrary to your statements, be used for non-criminal purposes. This legislation is fatally flawed and should be abandoned forthwith.

I'd also like to point out that though I vehemently oppose this legislation, I am certainly not "...with the child pornographers". I find your characterization of myself and other thoughtful Canadians to be offensive in the extreme. You remain unrepentant for this despicable comment, instead denying making it though one finds it readilly available in video and in Hansard. I would hope that at some time you might offer an apology to myself and those Canadians who might not agree with you. I suggest to you that it is un-Canadian to use such extremist rhetoric.


Paul Blank
Vancouver, Canada


From: vic.toews.c1@parl.gc.ca
To: xxxx
Date: Tue, 13 Mar 2012 10:47:02 -0400
Subject: RE: Stop Online Spying

Thank you for contacting my office regarding Bill C-30, the Protecting Children from Internet Predators Act.

Canada's laws currently do not adequately protect Canadians from online exploitation and we think there is widespread agreement that this is a problem.

We want to update our laws while striking the right balance between combating crime and protecting privacy.

Let me be very clear: the police will not be able to read emails or view web activity unless they obtain a warrant issued by a judge and we have constructed safeguards to protect the privacy of Canadians, including audits by privacy commissioners.

What's needed most is an open discussion about how to better protect Canadians from online crime. We will therefore send this legislation directly to Parliamentary Committee for a full examination of the best ways to protect Canadians while respecting their privacy.

For your information, I have included some myths and facts below regarding Bill C-30 in its current state.

Sincerely,



Vic Toews

Member of Parliament for Provencher

Myth: Lawful Access legislation infringes on the privacy of Canadians.
Fact: Our Government puts a high priority on protecting the privacy of law-abiding Canadians. Current practices of accessing the actual content of communications with a legal authorization will not change.

Myth: Having access to basic subscriber information means that authorities can monitor personal communications and activities.
Fact: This has nothing to do with monitoring emails or web browsing. Basic subscriber information would be limited to a customer’s name, address, telephone number, email address, Internet Protocol (IP) address, and the name of the telecommunications service provider. It absolutely does not include the content of emails, phones calls or online activities.

Myth: This legislation does not benefit average Canadians and only gives authorities more power.
Fact: As a result of technological innovations, criminals and terrorists have found ways to hide their illegal activities. This legislation will keep Canadians safer by putting police on the same footing as those who seek to harm us.



Myth: Basic subscriber information is way beyond “phone book information”.
Fact: The basic subscriber information described in the proposed legislation is the modern day equivalent of information that is in the phone book. Individuals frequently freely share this information online and in many cases it is searchable and quite public.

Myth: Police and telecommunications service providers will now be required to maintain databases with information collected on Canadians.
Fact: This proposed legislation will not require either police or telecommunications service providers to create databases with information collected on Canadians.

Myth: “Warrantless access” to customer information will give police and government unregulated access to our personal information.
Fact: Federal legislation already allows telecommunications service providers to voluntarily release basic subscriber information to authorities without a warrant. This Bill acts as a counterbalance by adding a number of checks and balances which do not exist today, and clearly lists which basic subscriber identifiers authorities can access.

Pause the vid around the :50 mark...look at the expression on their faces...and check this out.

"...He also relayed how Boris Yeltsin's late-night drinking during a visit to Washington in 1995 nearly created an international incident. The Russian president was staying at Blair House, the government guest quarters. Late at night, Clinton told Branch, Secret Service agents found Yeltsin clad only in his underwear, standing alone on Pennsylvania Avenue and trying to hail a cab. He wanted a pizza, he told them, his words slurring.

The next night, Yeltsin eluded security forces again when he climbed down back stairs to the Blair House basement. A building guard took Yeltsin for a drunken intruder until Russian and U.S. agents arrived on the scene and rescued him...."

This story is taken from an interview with Clinton, read more here http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2009-09-21-clinton-tapes_N.htm

In states with Castle Doctrine laws, you don't have to prove that someone is breaking into your house with harmful intent. The law assumes that the unauthorized entry implies felonious intent and authorizes the use of deadly force to protect yourself.

In other words, you don't have to wait around to be sure that the intruder is going to harm you, you can assume it from the act of illegal entry. This removes the troublesome and ill-defined burden of people in their own homes having to wait to get into a deadly situation where they find themselves at a disadvantage before they can defend themselves, and is, IMO a good law.

The thing that gun control advocates fail to acknowledge is that the guy breaking in was also aware of the law, i.e., that if you break into someone's home it's fair for the homeowner to assume that you're there to inflict personal injury and you can be killed with no criminal or civil repercussions on the shooter. He had the same information that she did regarding the law, yet she didn't choose whether or not to start the situation, he did.

Armed with that knowledge, he still chose to break into a woman's house carrying a weapon. There is simply nobody to blame in this situation other than the intruder. The man broke into her house intending to use violence in a calculated way to get whatever he wanted. He was met with someone who also was prepared to use violence, and he lost.

If she would have scared him off with a warning shot or something similar, he would have likely come back after her at some other place and time, when she was at a disadvantage. As unsavory as it is to take a life, the guy had it coming to him. The fact that she waited in her hall to shoot him when he came through the door is of no consequence, as it would have come to violence sooner or later. At least she was able to take advantage of her situation.

See how this is Entirely Fucking Different from hunting people? One is a guy chasing down and shooting people stealing bullshit property. The other is a mother protecting her child from an armed intruder.

I don't understand how anyone can confuse the two.

Oklahoma is one of the states that has a "Castle doctrine" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Castle_doctrine

So, I'd actually be surprised if she got arrested, regardless of whether or not she warned the intruder. The man was carrying a knife and forced his way into her home. You really don't need much more proof of danger than that.

First off, I think almost everybody can agree that its too bad some mothers son has been killed. I wouldnt want to minimize the loss of a human life.
But he was upto some no-good and he just happened to run into someone armed. You cant compare that to the Cold war, FFS.
Its not a cold war when the bad guy breaks into your bedroom with a butcher knife! A cold war?? If the russians would have crossed the border, in the middle of the night, into the USA armed with knives...and our forces would open fire with guns, to end the cold war, this is the manner you would hate???? really???? Bullshit!

Secondly,
"I didn't conclude that it started out as a burglary. It was hypothetical. As is the assumption he was out to kill her."
The burglary was not hypothetical , its the absolute minimum that even the most crooked lawyer could argue! We'll never know what he would've done to the young mother and her child after spending 20+ mins breaching the bedroom with his hunting knife. It would be prudent to assume it would include Robbery, assualt , rape, kidnapping, murder, multiple murder, or any combination of crimes.

I'm glad you realize that this whole ordeal does not support your anti-gun argument even after you try to compare this lunatic, kicking in doors ,armed with a 12" hunting knife, to a sneak thief running off with a TV.

And finally, Dont be sorry, you didnt ruin the mood of this story, you really just pissed on your own foot trying to to turn this into a different story.
You should be happy, there are a lot of other gunplay vids that you can scream like a litle old lady about , this just isnt it. RIP to the guy who just completly wasted his life.
>> ^Jinx:
>> ^csnel3:
>> ^Jinx:
I'm trying to imagine the tone of the news story if this happened in Europe.
I think my problem with guns is they escalate the confrontation. "Fortunately" it seems she didn't give him a chance, because a chance is a risk when there is a gun involved and it doesn't matter who's hands it happens to be in. She hesitates and he overpowers her, or he pulls his own gun and is a better aim and what started out as burglary is now a murder and that kid grows up without any parents.
I can't really condemn her actions though. Just that a guy is dead, even if it was some crook.

I'm trying to imagine WTF you're talking about. The gun didnt "escalate" the situation, it difused it. Are you ignoring the fact the guy was armed with a knife? Why is your scenario based on total fantasy instead of reality? What if she didnt have a gun, and the VERY REAL, ARMED INTRUDER murdered her. How do you come to the conclusion it started out as a burglary? He was breaking down the door armed with a 12" knife! This is a very simple story of a person protecting themselves, no need to add bunch of hypothetical BS to it. I realize that you are trying to justify your "problen with guns", but, this is the WRONG story to use as an anti-gun argument.

It escalated the situation because it was difused with a gun...you know, as in somebody is dead. How is that hard to understand 0.o. I'd hate to have the Cold War difused in the same manner.
I didn't conclude that it started out as a burglary. It was hypothetical. As is the assumption he was out to kill her.
Is this a good story to support my argument? No, not really, but then stories aren't good evidence anyway. Consider that stories where a guy breaks in, steals a TV and leaves without incident don't tend to get much media coverage.
And yes, I was justifying my position. Sorry if I ruined the mood on this success story for guns.

Fair point, bb. Asking permission to shoot someone, rather than preventing the intrusion. Mind you, she could have been scared out of her mind and desperate to make her one shot count. That said, if you're intruding and someone fires a 'warning shot', you'd still run like the wind.