 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| HomeArticlesDiving DestinationsLearning Scuba DivingMarine LifeMiscellaneousDiscussion GroupsGeneralScuba EquipmentScuba LocationsAustralian ScubaUK ScubaDirectoryScuba Clubs |
Scuba Forum / General / June 2005Why is everyone allowed to carry a deadly assault weapon?
The subject should fit right into gns and politics, so I am posing the question in this ng. Russell Crowe (of current "Cinderella Man" fame) was charged with a "4th degree assault with a deadly weapon" in NY, and the deadly weapon was his cell phone. And the TSA goons are checking shoes for weapons when the assault cell phones are used openly at airports. I think something is wrong with our security system along this line. -- Bob. > The subject should fit right into gns and politics, so I am > posing the question in this ng. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > assault cell phones are used openly at airports. I think > something is wrong with our security system along this line. I think something is wrong with your "joke". First off, it wasn't a cell phone. It was the phone from his room, which Crowe complained was faulty. Second, he wasn't arrested for "4th degree assault with a deadly weapon". He was arrested for 2nd degree assault and 4th degree possession of a weapon. So with the cell phone angle and the "deadly weapon" angle out, the punch line sort of falls flat. Crowe insists that he merely threw the phone against the wall, not at the clerk. > "Reef Fish" <Large_Nassau_Grouper@Yahoo.com> wrote in message Please don't qoute Fish - he's deeply killfiled and I try verey hard to keep him there > Please don't qoute Fish - he's deeply killfiled and I try verey hard to > keep him there You mean the Feesh has nothing meaningful to add? Then we agree. Curtis > > The subject should fit right into gns and politics, so I am > > posing the question in this ng. [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > I think something is wrong with your "joke". I didn't think it was a joke, even though the airport security is a joke. But the hotel arrest joke is a joke of a different kind. > First off, it wasn't a cell phone. It was the phone from his room, which > Crowe complained was faulty. The phone Crowe complained about was indeed the phone in his room. But the phone he was charged in the assault was not unambiguously specified in teh printed news version. > Second, he wasn't arrested for "4th degree assault with a deadly weapon". > He was arrested for 2nd degree assault and 4th degree possession of a > weapon. You are actually almost correct, for a change. I think the "deadly weapon" and "cell phone" parts must have been what I heard on the CNN News, and the TV reporters were making a joke of it. The newspaper printed version was, "The Australian movie star was arraigned on charges of second-degree assault and fouth-degree possession of a weapon -- the telephone. The assault charge is punishable by four years in privosn." The assume the latter meant UP TO four years in prison. I bet Crowe will NOT spend 4 years in prison, even if convicted. He'll more likely handed the same judgment as Zsa Zsa did for slapping a policeman with her weapon her manucure hand. > So with the cell phone angle and the "deadly weapon" angle out, the punch > line sort of falls flat. The REALITY joke is pretty funny without any punch line. > Crowe insists that he merely threw the phone against the wall, not at the > clerk. But the act was caught by a security video which will be shown in court to settle that part of the dispute. If the phone is an assault weapon, then you don't need to be a Kung Fu Master to know that the cell phone would be a much more accurate assault weapon than the hotel phone at the consierge's desk. > If the phone is an assault weapon, then you don't need to be a > Kung Fu Master to know that the cell phone would be a much more > accurate assault weapon than the hotel phone at the consierge's > desk. ? I assume the house phone is larger and heavier. The only damage the cell phone will do is give the victim brain damage if you hold it to his head long enough and that supposedly won't happen anyway. And the house phone has a strong cord that could be used as a garrotte. You could swing the receiver around by the cord, but it would probably snap off prior to or simultaneous with the first impact. What the heck would you Kung Fu with a cell phone? > > If the phone is an assault weapon, then you don't need to be a > > Kung Fu Master to know that the cell phone would be a much more [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > I assume the house phone is larger and heavier. Like Flintstone trying to hit someone with the wheel of his wagon? > The only damage the cell > phone will do is give the victim brain damage if you hold it to his head > long enough and that supposedly won't happen anyway. So, you haven't seen those small pieces of weapons at shops of Kung Fu and Martial Arts that can be throw accurately and with great force to knock your eyes, teeth, and other parts of your head out. > And the house phone has a strong cord that could be used as a garrotte. You > could swing the receiver around by the cord, but it would probably snap off > prior to or simultaneous with the first impact. What the heck would you > Kung Fu with a cell phone? That would be giving out trade secrets for free wouldn't it? See preceding paragraph for a hint. BTW, I suppose you know that the bare hands of a blackbelt karate holder is consider a lethal weapon by the laws of this land. And there's ANOTHER case of the security farce in airports that they confiscate items that couldn't kill a rooster, and check even sneaker shoes, but don't bother to tie up blackbelt holder's lethal weapons. -- Bob. > And there's ANOTHER case of the security farce in airports that they > confiscate items that couldn't kill a rooster, and check even sneaker > shoes, but don't bother to tie up blackbelt holder's lethal weapons. I'll bet you $10,000 that I can take whatever confiscated item you claim can't kill a rooster and proceed to kill a rooster with it. You supply the rooster. Are we on? >>If the phone is an assault weapon, then you don't need to be a >>Kung Fu Master to know that the cell phone would be a much more [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > prior to or simultaneous with the first impact. What the heck would you > Kung Fu with a cell phone? You guys are probably mixing up the martial arts. Hint: It's Kamasutra, not Kung Fu. Matthias > >>If the phone is an assault weapon, then you don't need to be a > >>Kung Fu Master to know that the cell phone would be a much more [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > You guys are probably mixing up the martial arts. > Hint: It's Kamasutra, not Kung Fu. So solly, your joke about oriental erotic ARTS might have vaguely applied to Greg's S/M like references, but this Kung Fu Master can tell you that "Kung Fu" is now a generic term for all kind of Martial Arts some of which can only be seen in movies. :-) See "Kung Fu Hustle" if you get a chance. It got the same raving review of "A" ratings and thumbs up as "Star War 3" when the were released at about the same. It's infinitely better than "Star War 3" -- I was bored after the first 20 minutes and left 15 minutes later to watch Russell Crowe's "Cinderella Man". :-) -- Bob. time. It's |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.