l3ubba

Age likely had nothing to do with that shooting. There are unstable people at all ages, I can find just as many, if not more so, cases of people in their 30s and 40s doing the same thing. Unfortunately from time to time there is someone who slips through the cracks and is able to get hired as a police officer. Not to mention the fact that he was a police officer had nothing to do with the shooting. He was off duty at the time and he was just a nut job, plain and simple. Yes there are still deployments out there but there are fewer and fewer of them now. Getting deployed is always a possibility, we have troops all over the world but like I said earlier, nobody can say a deployment is likely unless you work in Special Operations.

Not sure who told you that but they are wrong. If you are active duty you pay $100 a month from your paycheck for 12 months and you have to serve a minimum of 2-3 years. Unless you are talking about the reserves then it is 6 years like you said. As for deployments it is difficult to say whether or not we will be engaged in a serious conflict or not and what the scale of that conflict will be. Of course when you join the military you should always be ready to deploy, but my point is I don't think anyone can say with any confidence that a deployment is likely.

I wouldn't go as far to say that nearly everything bad in Cuba is our fault. Fidel Castro was a very oppressive leader, has a horrible human rights reputation, and there is heavy censorship in Cuba among other things.

As someone who is in the military and part of a unit that deploys teams frequently I can tell you that deployments are not likely for most regular Army units. We are out of Iraq and Afghanistan, most deployments are in the Special Operations fields now. MPs are definitely not deploying to very many places, there may be a few doing some small rotations through Bosnia but that is all I can think of at the moment. Also you will not need to sign a 6 year contract. I signed a contract for 3 years 35 weeks (basically 4 years), it is all dependent on the MOS you want and what is in your contract. If they are offering you a enlistment bonus (good luck getting one of those) then you will probably have to add on additional years or if you are adding a bunch of specialty schools into your contract that might also bump up the number of years you enlist for. Regardless of your enlistment time there is no guarantee of a deployment and if things continue the way they are going for the next 5 years then a deployment is not likely.

Sheriff's Explorers helps but don't bank on it. I was a sheriff's explorer for 3 years and spent a lot of time doing ride alongs with patrol deputies (over 2700 hours) so I knew a lot of people but I still got turned down for a job with them after I graduated the police academy. I had gone to a university for a year and a half and had some college before I went to the academy but without a degree and with no meaningful job experience only a handful of agencies even considered hiring me. Right now I am in the military and I am working on finishing my degree so that when I get out I can be more marketable. I know that the last thing you want to do after finishing 12 years of school is to enroll for more school but trust me that is the quickest way to become a police officer. More and more applicants are coming in with associates and even bachelors degrees so it is really hard to make yourself competitive if you don't have anything expect a high school diploma and some volunteer hours. You said yourself that you can go to the academy at 19 but you won't be able to get hired until you are 21. If you aren't going to be able to be a police officer until 3 years after you graduate high school why waste all that time and not work on a degree? One of the biggest mistakes I made was not finishing school, trust me it gets so much harder to go back to school once you have a full time job. I am not saying it isn't possible, but it is difficult and later down the line if you want to go to specialty units or get promoted you are going to need a degree at some point. Take advice from someone who has been there!

Ok I will tell you the same thing that myself and everyone else told you less than six months ago again. You will most likely never become a cop with a felony on your record. Sorry that your dreams are crushed but that is the reality and the sooner you accept that and move on to find a different job the easier it will be. Highly doubt the military will take him. We are in a huge draw down now that we aren't in Iraq and Afghanistan anymore. In the Army they are looking for any reason to kick people out and I know when I enlisted they had people come in to the recruiters office with felonies on their record and they immediately told them they couldn't join. Again, it is one of those things that is possible but highly unlikely and even if it does happen he won't get any MP position because, at least in the Army, that MOS requires eligibility for a Secret clearance which he would never be able to receive. Best case scenario, a branch lets him in and he can enlist as a cook or one of the other jobs that don't require a security clearance and there aren't very many in the Army that don't require you to be eligible for a security clearance.

What exactly is the point of this thread? I feel like you are just trying to get attention. Do you seriously think that anyone one this forum has the ability to grant you a pardon or start a petition that will get you hired? I'm pretty sure you already started a thread about this several months ago asking if you could be hired as a police officer with a felony and everyone told you no. What is the purpose of starting this all over again? This just looks like an grab for attention or trolling.

I still disagree with that statement. Some of the most outspoken bands/singers are actually from hard rock bands (i.e. AC/DC, Metallica). I hear people from all genres of music say something about it but some of the most outspoken ones are from hard rock bands from the 80s.

Yep, I'm well aware of that. They were somewhat hypocritical themselves.

Yes but they also wrote there would be separation of church and state. If you have an issue with gay marriage then that is fine, that is your personal belief but I find it extremely hypocritical (and illegal) that states ban gay marriage. I find it funny that the same political party that claims they want less government interference and how the government shouldn't be telling us how to live our lives is the same political party that thinks it is okay to pass laws banning gay marriage among other issues that are really no ones business. What happened to: "We hold these truths to be self‐evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

I don't think it is fair to say that just pop and country singers are the only ones who care about music piracy. There are plenty of bands from other genres of music that are very outspoken against music piracy such as Metallica. And I bet they would say it is a joke to pay for a single song because they want people to buy the whole album. Personally I like the idea of being able to buy individual songs off an album, what if I only like 3 or 4 of the songs off of a 15 song album? Why should I pay $10-$20 for an entire album when I only want to listen to a few songs off the album? They also probably didn't care at the time because what could they do about a random fan coming up to them and saying they download their music illegally? Call the police?

Yes, but look at those countries compared to us; we are nowhere close to being like any of those countries. That is why I laugh when you see protesters claiming we live in a police state; those people clearly don't know what a police state is and certainly have never lived in one.

That is a questionable statement. What evidence do you have to support that?

Like I said in my first post, most of the users here aren't even old enough to pay taxes so when you start paying taxes then you can start complaining about where your tax money goes.

The difference between the M16 and the A-10 is that the M16 is still being built therefor there are new rifles out there and new parts to replace broken ones. Imagine if they stopped producing M16s in the 1980s. They would be pretty bad right? The A-10 stopped production in 1984 so even the newest A-10 is turning 31 years old this year. The A-10 has gone through various upgrades but you can only upgrade so much, the physical airframe only lasts so long. I didn't mean that the Taliban were going to shoot down our A-10s with RPKs or anything like that I was talking about what the A-10 is meant for, killing Russian tanks. If we go into combat against a military that has even basic SAM systems it won't be that hard to shoot down an A-10, they are not fast and they fly low to the ground, easy target. Your statement about the A-10 needing fighter escort makes a perfect case for the having an aircraft that can do everything or, as you put it, "god mode" (whatever that is). So an A-10 wants to go out and fly a mission but the other military has fighters that might intercept our A-10s or they have SAMs that might shoot it down that means we have to get more aircraft to escort the A-10 whether it be fighters to make sure OPFOR fighters don't intercept it and/or electronic warfare aircraft that can jam SAM systems from shooting down our aircraft. So now for one or two A-10s to go out on a CAS mission they need to have an escort of 2-4 other aircraft. On the other hand if we have a multi-role aircraft that can perform multiple missions from a single airframe we don't need to waste resources on escorting it and those extra aircraft can perform their missions somewhere else where they are needed. Having an aircraft that is only good for one thing seems like the biggest waste of money to me. Don't get me wrong, I love the A-10. People say the A-10 is an ugly aircraft but I think quite the opposite and it is a badass aircraft with a sweet gun. However, it is an old aircraft, it can only perform one mission, and the only reason it is good at its job right now is because the people we are fighting have next to no anti-aircraft systems. With the advances we have in guided munitions we can just as easily have a few F-15s or a B-52 flying around at 30,000+ feet dropping guided bombs with crazy precision. Then complain about your government buying U.S. stuff, don't complain about paying taxes on a U.S. program (that you don't pay taxes on) that hasn't even made it to your country yet.

No, my point is that the novel is fiction. The reason it shows permanent surveillance can quickly turn into a oppressive dictatorship is because the author made the story turn out that way. My point is that you can make anything turn out a certain way when you are writing a book and to base your opinion on real life matters off of a fiction book doesn't make any sense.

Where did that lady get her information? None of what you do in public is private information. Your license plate is not private information, you parking your car in front of a church or gas station or where ever is not private information. Running license plate numbers is nothing new in law enforcement, police do it all the time it is just now they have the cameras which help take some of the work load off the officer which is particularly important when he/she is driving. So you are going to base your opinions off of a novel? I mean if that is all it takes then I'll write a novel about Godzilla. Does that mean you will then think there is a huge lizard living in the ocean and is about to attack Tokyo or New York?

First, I'm willing to bet the majority of the people in this thread are not old enough to be paying taxes. Second, why are Canadians complaining about an American project? I find it hilarious that Canadians are complaining about wasted tax dollars when they don't even pay taxes in the U.S. I'm not going to get into the statement you made about the war being criminal, that is too long of a conversation. Being in the military myself I can say that you would be surprised about the amount of old equipment we use. Most of the aircraft in the Air Forces' inventory is well over 30 years old. Because the A-10 is getting really old. It has nothing to do with how well the A-10 performs, it is just getting old. Just like the F-16 and F-15; they are both very good fighters but they are getting old. The A-10 entered service in 1977, that is almost 40 years ago and production ended on them almost 30 years ago meaning that there are no more new A-10 parts out there. Not to mention the mission the A-10 was built for is basically non-existent today and I'm willing to bet that if Russian tanks start storming across eastern Europe the Russians would have no problem shooting down a slow, low flying A-10 before it could do anything. The F-22 only entered service 10 years ago and the number of F-22s initially brought into service probably had something to do with why it didn't see combat until now. By the time the Air Force had all their F-22s the war in the middle east was drawing down. This doesn't mean it didn't go on deployments though, the F-22 did several deployments throughout the late 2000s.

I'm willing to bet this is the cause; it has happened before.

Not all guns have traditional safety switches like you think of; they have a different kind of safety. A Glock for example has a trigger safety where there is a mini trigger (for the lack of a better term) on the trigger that has to be depressed before the trigger can be pulled. What this lady did wrong is not having it holstered in her purse. As the deputy said, I am a supporter of concealed weapon permits but you have to be responsible when you own and carry a firearm especially if you have children.

Negative ghost rider. It is what everyone else in this thread said; sometimes someone will unintentionally (or intentionally to be funny) be transmitting over the radio (aka "being keyed up" or "having an open mic"). I have never heard someone say "check your keys" but it makes sense; in my sheriff's office we would just say "open mic" and everyone would know to check and make sure the key to their mics are stuck open or being pressed up against something.

When I first clicked on the link I didn't even pay attention to who posted it and while watching the video I was saying to myself, "why do these roads look so familiar?", click back to the post and saw who it was and realized why lol. Very nice videos, hope everything is going well out there. Stay safe, things are getting crazy out there. I am sure you heard about the two Pasco deputies that were shot at while sitting in their patrol cars out in Dade City.

Most aircraft do have tracking devices in case of emergencies. Aircraft have Emergency Locator Transmitters (ELTs) on board and commercial aircraft have blackboxes that also have ways of transmitting their locations (though the blackbox might not be in the same place as the rest of the aircraft). Even aircraft that do have GPS tracking aren't immune to "disappearing". GPS relies on satellites and if you are flying through severe weather like the Air Asia flight was you might lose communication with the satellite. No matter what we do there will always be something we can't account for.

Ok, so it seems nobody actually cares about researching the topic and reading up on facts (either that or they are just ignoring them). There were very heavy storms reported in that area when the aircraft disappeared and it appeared that the aircraft was trying to climb to a higher altitude and change course to avoid flying through these severe storms. I believe that whatever happened it was related to these storms whether something caused the aircraft to break up or maybe it was pilot error that caused something such as a stall while they were attempting to climb over the storm. It has only been about 24 hours since the incident so little facts are known, no need to come up with the crazy conspiracy theories yet. Those statements just prove how little you know about aviation.

Yep that is right. Of course this is just an assumption and I have next to no evidence to back it up, but like I said, I have a feeling most of the people they interrogate did something to make the CIA interested in them. I don't think the CIA just snatched random people off the street, they probably had intel that led them to that person.