johnclark1102

Just saw on CNN the Russian government is now confirming the plane was shot down by separatists.

Just what I want to hear before I go to work.... (airline pilot) My thoughts and prayers are with the families of those lost; I can't even imagine their grief and I hope my loved ones never have to experience it. At least the chances of being shot down in the US are a bit lower than over Ukraine. I suspect this will mean the end of Malaysian Airlines as well...

Yeah his is the only I've found out there in a police version. The other one was from someone called "NIK161RUS" who I don't know how to get a hold of so I figured I'd try my luck and see if anyone else happened to have one or know where to find one.

Does anyone know where I can find an unlocked Pontiac Sedan? Something like a Grand Prix or a G8? I've looked around Google and I've only found G8's, and only 1 of those which of course was locked. I'm trying to create a car inspired by one of the local agencies where I'm from and obviously Pontiac isn't a very common choice for law enforcement so it doesn't seem to be too plentiful here in the GTA world. If anyone happens to have one that I could use, or knows someone that has one and can point me in the direction of who to ask for permission to use one, I'd appreciate it. Thanks!

Welcome to the party!

Most of the communities I've seen with something like this are ones that made something themselves.

Even at large departments here in the US, most police buildings are only open to the public during normal business hours. Mon-Fri 8am-5pm. There is no need for civilians to be in a PD office in person most of the time, and staffing it 24/7 would just be unnecessary expense. The only reason people go there in person is usually to handle paperwork or administrative stuff. In an emergency, people call 911. And in a non emergency, people still call 911 unfortunately...

I would like to see him charged with attempted murder. But I am a pilot and can admit to being somewhat biased. But, it seems like a more than reasonable charge to me. A reasonable person knows that airplanes do not fly themselves, and a reasonable person could therefore conclude that if you fire a weapon at an aircraft, there is a reasonable chance that you might injure or kill a person. So, if you intentionally discharge a firearm while targeting an aircraft, you attempted to injure or kill a person. Imagine if the pilot had been hit and killed, and the plane then crashed into a car or house on the ground...

I'm certainly no expert on zModeler but I've encountered this problem before. You're trying to delete the entire light bar which must be labeled as it's own object in the hierarchy. From my experience, zModeler won't let you delete an entire object in polygon mode like that, you need to delete it from the hierarchy if you want to delete an entire object. It's hard to explain in text but I'll try and clarify; if something exists in the hierarchy, then it has to exist in the model too. So for example, if that light bar is named "misc_e" in your hierarchy, then there has to be something on the model that is part of "misc_e". You can't have something in the hierarchy that doesn't exist on the model, and by trying to delete it in polygon mode, you can delete everything up until that very last polygon... When you try to delete the last polygon, zModeler basically says, "Hey wait a minute, this "misc_e" part still exists in the hierarchy so it needs to have at least 1 polygon in order to be a real object. Unless you replace it with a dummy, which serves the purpose of being a "fake" physical object. If you want to delete that light bar, just figure out what it's named in the hierarchy, then right click on it in the hierarchy and click delete. The other lights should be named something else entirely in the hierarchy and should be unaffected. If they were also part of the same object, then there's no reason I can think of why you couldn't delete the light bar in polygon mode. Hopefully my explanation made sense; I can't think of a better way to explain it in text.

Ok, I'll say this and this is common sense okay... When the police issue you an order, you comply with it. Period. If you fail to comply with an order issued by a police officer, that officer is legally allowed to use force to restrain you. That is not "assault" as defined by law, and it is not a crime for an officer to use physical force to restrain a subject, including punching them in the face. It doesn't matter whether you believe an order to be issued lawfully or not, that's a decision to be made in court, not on the side of a busy highway. Far too many Americans take their "rights" so far out of context and extrapolate them to mean things they never have and never will. It doesn't matter if the subject is male or female, either gender can kill you just as quickly, so you don't take any chances or unnecessary risks. In the American court system, everyone is considered innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. This is a basic legal tenant that so many people seem content to forget when the person in question is a police officer, and then everyone immediately wants to scream about brutality. Without knowing all the circumstances that led up to this incident, including the circumstances of the information the officer had coming into it, the actions and behaviors the officer observed, the actions the subject committed once the officer interacted with her, and the overall totality of the circumstances, no one can possibly say who was right and who was wrong because no one knows. Maybe the officer was wrong. But, maybe he was right. Maybe the subject was under the influence of a narcotic or intoxicant, maybe she threw punches and assaulted the officer before the cameras started filming, maybe it was reported that she had a weapon, maybe she assaulted a civilian who attempted to help her and then ended up calling the police, maybe she attempted to grab the officers gun. She was definitely walking around on a highway and was in imminent danger of being struck by a car, so the officer could have reasonably believed that the only way to safeguard her life and his was to physically control her. Especially since she was resisting and trying to pull away from him, they could have easily both fallen into the roadway and been struck by a car because of her resistance. When I watched the video, after he put his hands on her she spun around and looked like she was resisting and appeared to land several punches on the officer, even after she'd fallen to the ground. That's enough cause under the law for him to use physical force to subdue her. No one's opinion here is going to change the facts of the law and the facts of the circumstances, and to think that anyone can accurately judge what happened from a 30 second video is simply ridiculous.

Depends on the purpose. I prefer both, depending on the application of the vehicle. Light bars provide much greater visibility and enhance officer safety. They are also much more visible which makes them a more effective deterrent. People generally don't do stupid things when they know there's a cop near by. Slick tops allow a stealthier surveillance and interdiction because you they aren't as noticeable, and reduce mechanical wear on the engine because they don't have drag from the light bar.

Seriously, come join the party. All the cool kids are doing it...