catbirdseat

As far as I know, the Feathers parking area is off limits to camping. People camp there anyway, but it doesn't make it right. I don't know waout the area on the right before the feathers. I've seen it used by concert goers. You could also park in the gravel lot by the porta potties and walk into the Zig Zag Wall area to camp. You'll have to carry as it is not legal to drive in there. It would be quiet. Be sure to carry out all your trash and leave your site better than you found it.

It's important to have a loving owner, that's for sure. That man is most likely kissing that bird because it just won him a pile of dough in a cock fight.

That and the fact that twins are each clipped together to each piece means that the amount of rope out is identical, so that they stretch and move identically with no friction between strands. Contrast this with halfs (halves?) where one strand might go over a rock and the other not, or one that may take a longer path.

You have no doubt heard about the cat food recall. I can't help but wonder if carolyn's cat may have sufferred kidney failure as a result of the contaminated food from Iam's and others.

It's raining outside, otherwise I'd be out climbing. Now get back to work.

What do you mean? On straight-up pitchs with no traversing, I often see people clip both doubles into one piece, just like twins. Is this wrong? Should each strand of the double be in its own biner? If you clip both strands, you double the impact force on the piece. Most of the time, this will not matter, as most placements are plenty strong- bolts for instance. It will decrease the distance you fall.

Let the F'ing jury decide what is relevant and what is not. It's why we have juries.

Hopefully they've given him a suitable "anodyne".

It was irrelevant in the decision making of the shooter, but it is not irrelevant in deciding what the victim's actions were or what his motives were. There was only the shooter's account of what happened. As a juror, I would want to know what the person was like. If you could not find a single person who had ever seen him lose his temper explosively as he was said to do, then I'd be more inclined to believe he did not provoke the shooting.

Shootout at the Not OK Corral. It's a good story. It would make a good TV movie.

DeC's story was quite clear-cut, mainly because there was a witness other than the shooter and the fact that someone was actually being beaten. So why is it that judges sometimes allow testimony regarding the character of a victim in some cases and not in others? I think that juries should be given ALL available information with which to base their decision.

For a minute there I thought you were selling one of these:

Kurt, in this case the bullet went through the hand on the way to the chest. The hand was outstretched in front of the victim.

Give us a complete description of the truck and we'll keep an eye out for it.

Okay, lets say for the moment, that the defendant deserves to be punished. He got ten years. Okay, now consider the junkie who shoots his dealer because he doesn't have enough cash for the dope he needs. He gets ten years. Why is it the scout leader defending himself gets the same sentence as the junkie?

Okay, I'll bite. You asked about whether the victim was moving towards the defendant. This is what the interview said: So maybe it is possible that the hand wound occurred because he was taking a swing at Fish? The medical examiner presumes it was because the victim was holding them in a defensive posture. I can reconcile Fish's story that the victim was charging by positing that the victim came to a halt just as the shots were fired.

Aggressor? Where was the body found? On the trail, not in his campsite. If the body was at the campsite, it would suggest that the shooter was the aggressor, but in this case the victim ran a fair distance to accost the defendant where he stood on the trail. If I remember correctly, all three wounds occurred while the victim was still standing. Forensics would have demonstrated differently, had any of the wounds been made while the victim was laying on the ground. The defendant rendered first aid and called for help immediately. What motive could he possibly had to shoot the man other than self-defense? Do you think a mild-mannered retired school teacher, father of seven and scout master just run around shooting people for no reason?

Oooo, an 8 mm half rope. Sounds like he can have his cake and eat it too! And on sale, no less.

Again we don't know. I can only presume that the gun was at least visible. From what was said of the victim, he was prone to flying into blind rages. He may have been in a state completely devoid of reason. Again, the judge ruled that none of this could be presented to the jury.

Rather than getting an 8 mm, which is a twin rope, I suggest getting a 9 mm half rope. Then you'd have the option to lead using half rope technique. Later you could get a mate to the 9 mm, which is what I did, since I didn't have the bread to buy two at the same time.

The question before the jury was, "is it Murder in the Second Degree"? Had I been a juror I would have voted to acquit. Had the question been, "is it Neglegent Homicide or Manslaughter?", I would have voted to convict. So now you know exactly what you would decide before hearing the trial? Isn't that type of condemning exactly what you have spoken out about? The fact is that those who watched the dateline show know more than the jury knew. The conviction says a lot about the judge in the case. His actions and his words are not in accord with each other.

So I have to quote you. This is a mistatement. The man WAS being attacked.

The question before the jury was, "is it Murder in the Second Degree"? Had I been a juror I would have voted to acquit. Had the question been, "is it Neglegent Homicide or Manslaughter?", I would have voted to convict.

Way to go CBS. You have started the CC.com machine. I have a feeling it will be hard at work for the entire day. Somebody needed to stir up shit.

You thought about how YOU would react and you assumed another person would do exactly as you would.