TA120

That was the issue, doing that worked perfectly! Thanks a bunch!

No extra liveries or anything. It started with the first file I installed to the sheriff slot. Those files weren't messed with as far as liveries or anything. Popped in-game, spawned the car and it looked like that. I deleted the file in OpenIV and it went back to the default vanilla vehicle. Tried a different car mod for the sheriff slot, same deal with that one as well. As far as the YTDs, each time I messed with the vehicle I ensured that all the correct files from the download were imported into OpenIV. When I opened the .ytd files after all this occurred, everything appears normal there and the fragment object appears normal as well. It's really got me stumped

https://imgur.com/a/Ly3wGCJ I'm trying to figure out why this vehicle in the "sheriff" slot appears the way it does. The vehicle is intended to be in the "sheriff" slot, and in OpenIV it looks perfectly fine (seen below). https://imgur.com/a/QuL8zAb This hasn't ever occurred before, and no other vehicles that were installed in this pack have this issue, only this individual car. Any ideas? I've tried re-installing the vehicle and installing a new vehicle, but neither resolved the problem.

Worked like a damn charm, it's all good now. Thanks a bunch man.

After updating to the most recent game version, none of my ELS vehicles are working. I can still access the panel via CTRL+P, and all the keys work. The first two main stages don't do anything though, and when I'm at the third main stage, only the tail lights alternate (just the tail lights themselves, no lights). Scripthook was updated to the latest, Advanced is there, and everything was working fine before the update. This was consistent across multiple ELS vehicles. ASI Loader: ELS: RPH:

Plain clothes does not mean off-duty. And American LEOs are always on duty. Some departments even require their officers to be armed 24/7 as per policy, even when out of service. Sources: American LE

Negative on your last, ghost rider.

The way you worded this sentence along with filing a complaint for an alleged assault, it sounds quite exaggerated; that, or there's a part of the story that isn't being told. There's "assault", and then there's assault.

With all due respect, telling a plainclothes LEO he or she can't carry on your grounds is just as bad as what happened in the OP. As an RO, you should know that LEOs are always on duty. I'm not discrediting what you're saying about the badge part, but I'm pretty doubtful that the dude just chucked his shield at you like a fastball.

Statistics aren't my thing, but you're more than welcome to compare that to the population and break it down into percents. My point is this: we can argue numbers all we want. Crime will always persist, and when crime persists, the People require a first-line defense in order to prevent victimization. What scares the hell out of me isn't the three hundred some million firearms owned by other Americans, nor walking by other Americans carrying a firearm, concealed or open. What scares the hell out of me is not having a gun if and when I'm attacked, therefore being deprived of my basic human right to protect my own life and left at the mercy of an attacker who has full and complete power and control over me. When it comes to protection, it isn't a game of numbers. It's the fact that innocent Americans are raped, kidnapped, robbed, or murdered, and they have no means to defend themselves because "better for thee, not for me" politicians believe that they know what's best for the American People while sitting behind their desk in Washington, surrounded by armed security. You have the right to not possess a firearm because of your beliefs. I whole heartedly respect that decision, and will go so far to disagree with those that say everyone should be forced to own a firearm. We have the freedom of choice in America, and that's a beautiful thing. However I, and millions of other fellow Americans, respectfully ask that you respect our right to own firearms, and the right to carry those firearms in the interest of life and liberty.

You're right, you can't live life full of what-ifs. For those of us that do carry or otherwise possess a firearm for use in a defensive posture, we aren't scared. We're comfortable because we know that we do have the means and ways to protect ourselves from anybody that wants to cause us harm; and trust me, there's plenty of those people out in the world, none the less in our country, state, and community. Before you were talking about how likely we are to be victimized in or outside of our home. Here's some interesting statistics compiled by the U.S. Department of Justice from 1974 to 1985: 42% of Americans will be the victim of a completed violent crime (assault, robbery, rape) in the course of their lives. 83% of Americans will be the victim of an attempted or completed violent crime. 52% of Americans will be the victim of an attempted or completed violent crime more than once. Source: https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/bjs/104274.pdf Those numbers are high as hell. 83% of Americans WILL be the victim of some sort of violent crime, attempted or completed, throughout the course of their life. Crimes that leave people mentally and emotionally traumatized for life, crimes that may severely disfigure someone physically, or may leave them face-down in a drainage ditch dead. And just to think, eight out of ten Americans will experience that terror at least once in their life. More interesting stats from the DOJ: 5.9 million violent crimes were committed in the United States during 2014. These include simple/aggravated assaults, robberies, sexual assaults, rapes, and murders. A 1993 nationwide survey of 4,977 households found that over the previous five years, at least 3.5% of households had members who had used a gun “for self-protection or for the protection of property at home, work, or elsewhere.” A 1993 nationwide survey of 4,977 households found that over the previous five years, at least 0.5% of households had members who had used a gun for defense during a situation in which they thought someone “almost certainly would have been killed” if they “had not used a gun for protection.” This amounted to 162,000 such incidents per year. Source: https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/bjs/104274.pdf When you have a minute, please read over http://www.justfacts.com/guncontrol.asp#general. There's surprising information on there as to where felons obtain firearms, violent crime statistics, defensive gun usage, and so forth.

"I prefer dangerous freedom over peaceful slavery" - Thomas Jefferson to James Madison, 1787.

I did bro. What you're talking about (the restriction of where you may or may not possess a handgun) is the entire premise of Heller (the above case). Washington D.C. municipal code required handguns be kept in a non-functional state, and they had to remain in the home. That law was struck down as extremely unconstitutional. Therefore, exactly what you're proposing is also extremely unconstitutional. You're talking about not having a reason to carry a gun in civilized society. There's two points to that: 1. You do not require a "need" to exercise any Constitutional or god-given right. 2. I wish we lived in a world where we didn't need guns. That is far from the case. I welcome you to tell every would-be rape victim, would-be kidnapping victim, would-be murder victim, that they didn't need the gun they utilized to defend themselves; that they shouldn't have had that gun to protect themselves. Better yet, why not read a first-hand account from a guy that DID use a gun to defend himself in a home invasion? https://www.ar15.com/forums/general/_ARCHIVED_THREAD____Ask_a_guy_who_defended_himself_in_a_home_invasion_anything__Well__almost_anything_/5-1638294/?page=1 We can play the "what if" game for a long time man. The chances of having a car accident are slim, but we still wear seat belts every time we drive (or I hope we do). The chances of our house catching fire are slim, but we still have smoke alarms and fire extinguishers. The chances of our house being invaded while we sleep are slim, but we still secure all entry ways before we go to sleep.

Please refer to my above post of DC v. Heller, as the Militia point was directly addressed by Scalia. From the above link; "Additionally, the term “militia” should not be confined to those serving in the military, because at the time the term referred to all able-bodied men who were capable of being called to such service. To read the Amendment as limiting the right to bear arms only to those in a governed military force would be to create exactly the type of state-sponsored force against which the Amendment was meant to protect people." The last words of the Amendment state "the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed". I don't want to break shit down barney style as to what "the People" means.

Some of y'all need to read up on D.C. v. Heller. https://www.oyez.org/cases/2007/07-290 In DC v Heller, Justice Scalia plainly states that banning a certain class of firearms (handguns in this instance) is extremely unconstitutional. In the full Heller decision, it also addresses the argument of "well, AR15s weren't around when the 2nd Amendment was ratified, so they should be banned / restricted / whatever". The Court addresses that by stating that just because a type of firearm was not in existence at the time of inception of the 2nd Amendment, does not mean that the firearm doesn't fall under the 2nd's protection. If you want gun control, move to Chicago or use two hands. But please don't impose ridiculous legislation and beliefs upon other Americans that hold the right to protect themselves very close to their heart. These rights were plainly addressed in our Constitution, and in our Republic the Constitution is the law of the land.

humor is an outlet for many. that includes joking about things that 95% of people think shouldn't be joked about. it isn't uncommon for officers to joke about suicides (or any deaths) and all sorts of shit like that. it's not with ill intent either. you just have to laugh to keep from crying. besides that, if an officer clears a call and calls a complainant a fucking idiot in private, chances are he probably was. like Mags said, LE is not like anything else in the world.

It depends. If they carry themselves out in a manner in compliance with the law, they won't be bothered despite their pants on head retarded beliefs. But they go so far as to make homemade license plates, homemade drivers licenses & other documents, etc. Basically anything associated with the U.S. government (or state or local), they refuse. It's pretty common for an officer to arrest a sovereign, and then the sovereign places a multi-million dollar lien on the officer's house. The issue with sovereigns is that they truly believe what they preach, and they're willing (and have before) to use deadly force against officers. Cop blockers on the other hand are just dickheads that enjoy fucking with cops, when in reality they more than likely do not "know their rights" and end up in cuffs anyway.

Piss poor tactics such as combating a lethal threat with shitty OC spray is not an approach that should be idolized. They made due with what they had, but it definitely isn't the end-all-be-all solution. Deadly force and the potential of is met with deadly force in America.

America has our fair share of sovereign citizens. These fuckers claim that they are not American citizens despite being born & raised in the nation, rather they are "free inhabitants" of the land of (whatever the fuck). Their idea is that they are exempt from any and all laws and regulations, and they claim that no law enforcement officer has any sort of power over them. This makes them exceptionally dangerous, as they're willing to use lethal force to enforce these ideas. Their basis comes from the Articles of Confederation, the document that governed America before the Constitution was ratified in 1789. The AoC is completely null and void, but they still abide by their principles. What you described is either a sovereign citizen or a cop block retard. Sovereigns love to use flashy words and phrases in hopes of confusing the officer (a car is a conveyance, their house is their domicile, they do not drive, they travel, etc.)

word. the incompetence and totality of the circumstances is just dumbfounding though.

Right. It doesn't matter where the enforcement action occurs, rather where the crime itself occurred (ex, pursuits into neighboring jurisdictions and the like)

Nah, I'm still in college but I'll be applying for agencies after graduation. I've got a lazy eye as well and it's worried me before. Knowing that someone else was able to correct theirs all the way down to 20/25 is awesome and puts those worries to rest.

Far from it. There's a good amount of liberal areas in Texas (Houston, Dallas). It's largely because it's a border state plus metropolitan areas. There's better images of gun loving conservative states.

Hell yeah man, that's fucking awesome. Mine is 20/150 uncorrected, 20/60 corrected. I had a patch in elementary school and I hated to wear that damn thing. Shit was itchy as hell bro. But nah man, there's no worries there. Just like the military, there won't be any DQs simply because you have a lazy eye. As long as your vision is in accordance with the standards (which it is lmao) you'll be golden man.

20/25 is amazing dude. How did you get yours to that level? Glasses? Mine is corrected to 20/60 via a single contact. I wouldn't worry about it at all. I've never seen a department disqualify based off of a lazy eye alone, instead just off of vision standards. You're in good shape.