ashw_justin

They're greedy and we can buy them.(?) Could be a bad investment.

Let's not get too hard on the pebblers now; if it weren't for the spotter and beanie action, the sportos probably may have tried to rap bolt it by now.

You can buy protein powder in bulk at Whole Paycheck, $6-$10/lb depending on how pretentious you want to get. The cheap soy one tastes good with some fruit juices, contributing a nearly tasteless smoothie texture.

20-ga was enough for Cobain

Or for extra safety, a fat team

That sounds shitty dude. Can you move?

Yeah that's pretty harsh, even for spray. Firearms exist, are legal, and despite their notorious and inevitable involvement in most of the nation's worst crimes and accidents, are owned responsibly by millions of people in the U.S. You should probably find a better way to deal with it than making comments like that.

I won't have a gun in my house, but can see the merits of a shotgun over a handgun for home deterrence/defense. - easier to aim - low-powered individual rounds less likely to continue into the next room, or the neighbors' - no temptation to concealed-carry it around in public ps. people will probably disagree with your second item. edit: too late

That's a strange comment to make. Not so if the unroped crevasse fall killed you--in that case they'd probably leave you in there for while until they could organize a body recovery. Probably best to just stay out of the crevasses.

But who's taking a moral high ground? They're just saying "it's mine and you can't have it." This is simple law of the jungle stuff, everything happens by force. What's more pathetic about the alarmists is their unconscious decision to blame immigrants, instead of our own domestic market forces and complete lack of business integrity that allow it all to happen. Stupid Americans who will curse immigrants, while at the same time obliviously pouring money into companies reaping profits from slave wage immigrant labor. How many dollars did you spend today to support illegal immigration? (Hint: the answer is not zero.)

But that's business as usual for a senator. Politics itself has been a religion for as long as people stopped asking questions, and politicians needed money more than they needed integrity. Integrity isn't going to pay for airtime and neither is Max Blumenthal. I wonder how long we'll even be able to see things like this on the rapidly commercializing internet.

You see Cheney is just not as good of an actor as Bush. That is why he vice president. (A president must be capable of appearing helplessly retarded in order to repel accountability.)

Obama bin Husseidinijad wants you dead!

I'm not complaining, until the elections, that is

Yep, crossies got soft... thanks to the middle-eastern theater, at least now most of their neurotic aggression is pointed somewhere outside of the country, to an enemy most of them can't (or hipocritially refuse to) even touch.

No, they're not terrorists until they bomb the abortion clinic

These aren't cheerleaders, these are whackjob parents hoping their kids get into a brawl on the field, and moreover congratulating themselves for feeling that way.

Fucking armchair fundamentalists. They all ought to be bitchslapped for trying to send the best of us off to die for their pathetic delusions. Can we just ship all of these zealots off to 'the homeland?' Clearly they can talk the talk; can they walk the walk?

Eh, I think he is just using that skin-colored tape.

Fines? That's their big idea? There must be some more intelligent way of applying local jurisdiction to confront this issue...

It's the actual instructions to the jurors that are the most relevant: they look to be taken almost verbatim from a previous supreme court case (Walden), and are likely the very same instructions that one's jury would hear today if they ended up in court over using deadly force (which apparently includes baseball bats) in self defense. The case itself is less interesting; it looks like Twigg had a pretty hard time arguing self-defense in the first place. I gather the Twigg appeal was not a strong one, but I haven't researched the outcome.

"The jury rejected self defense and convicted Peter Twigg of assault in the first degree while armed with a deadly weapon. ... Twigg was charged with first degree assault with a deadly weapon in violation of RCW 9A.36.011(1)©. Under RCW 9A.36.110(1)©, "[a] person is guilty of assault in the first-degree if he or she, with intent to inflict great bodily harm: ... [a]ssaults another and inflicts great bodily harm." There is no dispute that Twigg intentionally assaulted Sereyka with a metal baseball bat and intended to inflict great bodily harm. Twigg claimed he acted in self defense and in defense of Larie. 6 No. 56561-3-I/7 In evaluating self defense, the jury is instructed to view the evidence from the defendant's perspective and determine what a reasonably prudent person would have done and the degree of force a reasonable person would believe was necessary. Walden, 131 Wn.2d at 474. Jury instructions on self defense must "more than adequately convey the law." Walden, 131 Wn.2d at 473 (citing State v. LeFaber, 128 Wn.2d 896, 900, 913 P.2d 369 (1996)). The jury instructions must also make the law of self defense "manifestly apparent to the average juror." Walden, 131 Wn.2d at 473. A jury instruction that misstates the law of self defense is constitutional error and is presumed prejudicial. Walden, 131 Wn.2d at 473. We review jury instructions de novo. State v. Pirtle, 127 Wn.2d 628, 656, 904 P.2d 245 (1995). The trial court gave six jury instructions on the law of self defense; Instructions 6 through 11. Instruction 6 is based on 17.02, Lawful Force -- Defense of Self, 11 Washington Pattern Jury Instructions -- Criminal (2d ed. Supp. 1998) (WPIC). ... Instruction 6 states: It is a defense to a charge of Assault in the First Degree, Assault in the Second Degree or Assault in the Third Degree that the force used or offered to be used was lawful as defined in this instruction. The use of or offer to use force upon or toward the person of another is lawful when used or offered by a person who reasonably believes that he is about to be injured or by someone lawfully aiding a person who he reasonably believes is about to be injured in preventing or attempting to prevent an offense against the person and when the force is not more than necessary. ... Instruction 7 states: One has the right to use force only to the extent of what appears to be the apparent imminent danger at the time. However, when there is no reasonable ground for the person attacked or apparently under attack to believe that his person or another person is in imminent danger of death or great personal injury, and it appears to him that only an ordinary battery is all that is intended, he has no right to repel a threatened assault by the use of a deadly weapon in a deadly manner. ... Instruction 11 states: In determining whether a use of deadly force in self defense was lawful, the phrase "great personal injury" means an injury that the defendant reasonably believed, in light of all the facts and circumstances known at the time, would produce severe pain and suffering if it were inflicted upon either the defendant or another person. Twigg argues the imminent fear of death and great personal injury standard used in Instructions 7 and 11 is limited to homicide and attempted homicide cases and the Instructions improperly placed a greater burden on him to prove that he feared more than bodily injury." http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=wa&vol=2007_app/565613MAJ&invol=4

"The idea that people should use deadly force only to defend their lives is rooted in English common law, author Richard Maxwell Brown says in No Duty To Retreat: Violence and Values in American History and Society. Another common law principle, the "duty to retreat," requires people to avoid potentially deadly confrontations. The principles apply in most states. The duty to retreat generally doesn't apply in a person's home. LaPierre says the NRA is targeting 29 duty-to-retreat states where people can be prosecuted, sued or both if they don't retreat from criminal attacks. Ragbourn says the proposals aim to "fix a system that isn't broken. People aren't being thrown into jail for legitimate self-defense. There's no crisis here." http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2006-03-20-states-self-defense_x.htm

South side routes. For anything more interesting, you'll have to do a little more active research...

You posted in the wrong section. There's plenty of beta to be found in the Rainier section, and there is a partners section if you want that. Note that Rainier may or may not be more difficult to navigate than this website (although from recent route photos found in the Rainier forum there looks to be a beaten path). Don't ask people to tell you if it is okay to solo something--that's the big 'ol can you opened!