wcso84

Maybe Tipper just saw the light, you know how Al is always jetting around telling everyone they need to cut their greenhouse gas emissions, she’s just doing her part. Sounds like she is cutting hers by about 95%.

I did find this just doing a quick google search. DEEP UNDERWATER EXPLOSION PHENOMENA 2.83 Because the effects of a deep underwater nuclear explosion are largely of military interest, the phenomena will be described in general terms and in less detail than for a shallow underwater burst. The following discussion is based largely on observations made at the WAHOO shot in 1958, when a nuclear weapon was detonated at a depth of 500 feet in deep water. The generation of large-scale water waves in deep underwater bursts will be considered in Chapter VI. 2.84 The spray dome formed by

But would a controlled, low yield blast 5000’ below the surface, 100s of miles from the coast be a disaster? I do know that there have been under water test of nuks done in the past. Is there any information as to the impact the blast had, condition of these sites afterward, have they been monitored? And as Gadawg mentioned, maybe it doesn’t even need to be a nuclear blast, just a blast of significant magnitude to collapse the shaft and stop the flow.

I must admit, although I live near the coast I do not watch a lot of TV at all,I rarely watch or listen to the news so I don’t really know what folks down this way are saying about it. It is nice to know that my thoughts parallel others on the subject though. And from what news I do read, it appears they are no closer to stopping the flow than they were the day it happened. This seems to me like something that requires decisive, swift and extreme action to get it in hand.

Do you think California could hold that much water, I mean we would need to pipe it somewhere. Or maybe we could just divert into the Rio Grande, make it too deep to walk across and curb the illegal immigration problem at the same time.

If you will note in a previous post. I state I do not know what the ramifications of it would be.I am pretty sure it would work. As I understand it the entire sea floor in the area of ground zero would be turned into a giant piece of glass, effectively stopping the flow. I do know under water nuclear testing has been done before. We do not appear to have any issues from this testing. I do accept that there would be marine life that is impacted in the area of the blast zone, but would it be best to accept that or keep allowing this thing to free flow and destroy an entire hemisphere of coastli

Call me crazy but, yep, I think I could solve it an about one second.

सौभाग्य जो अंग्रेजी बोल सकता है खोजने

Truedat. Then the only issue will be to decide who takes the credit for stopping the flow.

Excellent.

I don’t know, but heaven forbid we do it unilaterally without the blessing of the UN and some other third world countries.

Kinda runs along the same timeline when the "time outs" replaced “wearing their butt out”. But ya know, we were just surrounded by pedophiles back in the day, had to be, what other reason would an adult have to put his/her hands on a child’s precious little bottom. Gotta love Dr. Spock, THANKS DOC. If you have not read the entire thread you will not understand the above Pedophile statement.

Why not pop a low yield nuke at the well head. I am no engineer but you would think that it would seal it up and be done with the ordeal. I realize there would be collateral damage to marine life in the area, but the alternative appears to be much more widespread damage on shore. Just a thought, don’t really know the pros and cons it.

In most of the things you reference, people are complaining about lack of action by LE. I only attempt to inform them what we are mandated to do and what we do as a courtesy. And that ultimately YOU are responsible for your own protection (Supreme court ruling, not my opinion.) I have not lasted 25 years in this profession by not doing the right thing. I love helping people, I hate it when people complain about a lack of action on our part on something that typically is not a LE issue.

You made the statement in reference to “a slackard officer”. Since I am apparently the only known law enforcement officer in this thread, and my opinion does not parallel yours, one can only infer that the comment was aimed toward me.Nice attempt at a spin. I have given NO legal advice in this thread, I only gave a view from one law enforcement officers stance. You are correct that another officer may have a different opinion on the matter being discussed. There are officers that take folks to jail for things that I would not and likewise I take folks to jail for things another officer

I have a friend who is a single dad, WO3 in the Army. He has 4 kids 4,6,8 and 11. I have known these kids since birth, and they will all tell ya that “dad gave uncle David permission to bust our butt”. These are good and well behaved kids and rarely need discipline, but just hearing them say that makes me laugh. Uncle David only needs to make like he is fixing to “bust some butts” to elicit the desired response from them when needed. So I guess by some peoples standards on here, if I ever do exercise the permission to administer corporal punishment if needed I would be breaking the law and sho

With the information given in the OP, the Georgia statutes and definitions I posted, an officer can not legally make an arrest in this case. NOW, the OP may go to the magistrate judge file an affidavit complaint and ask for a warrant to be issued. The judge can do one of three things at this time, 1, he may find probable cause from the complaint and issue a warrant at that time. 2. He may find that there is not sufficient cause to issue a warrant at this time and may compel both the complainant and the respondent to come before the court for a warrant hearing to get both sides of the story bef

OK great. BUT if you just happen to be the magistrate judge in the county this happened in you must recuse yourself. You now have a conflict.

Id bet lunch on it. And by the way, you just made the case for in loco parentis. AWWW hECK, i'd buy lunch either way, i'm just nice like that.

People who dont know the law? I have 25 years experience in interpreting and applying criminal law. I have hundreds of hours of courtroom testimony where I am often required to articulate my reasons for applying or not applying a certain law. I have studied law and keep current on new case law and court rulings that affect the way laws are able to be applied. That is a brief synopsis of my qualifications on knowing the law. And yours are? I will bow out of this topic now, I have said all I can say on the subject. Yall have a good day and play nice.

It would be up to a judge or jury to determine if he broke any law. By definition of in loco parentis reads and what Ga statute says in reference to it ,In my opinion, HE DID NOT BREAK ANY LAWS.

And I think it would be a wash in the legal system. The child committed an offense against his son, he “possibly” committed an offense against her son. If she pursues charges against him, he will surely pursue charges against her child for the violation against his own child. The ADULTS should have taken care of this at that time like ADULTS and been done with it.

Or maybe he is just sick and tired of undisciplined kids being left to run amuck, one of which committed an offense against his own child. Maybe if people don’t want strangers disciplining their kids parents will teach them how to act properly in a public environment. I find it disturbing that instead of holding the parents feet to the fire for their childs assault on another, you seek out excuses for the child and make accusations of pedophilia toward the parent of the victim.

I agree that if someone was using this as a defense, the burden would be on them to be able to articulate how they qualify as loco parentis, and a definition of absence would need to be had for purpose of applying to the statute. There is a lot of gray area here. But if I was the one who got a call along the lines of the Ops situation, I would be hard pressed to take any action due to the wording of the statute.. If they still wanted to pursue it I would recommend them talking with the magistrate and get his/her view on it. If the magistrate agrees a law was violated he can issue a warrant at

16-5-23. (a) A person commits the offense of simple battery when he or she either: (1) Intentionally makes physical contact of an insulting or provoking nature with the person of another; or (2) Intentionally causes physical harm to another. ( Except as otherwise provided in subsections © through (i) of this Code section, a person convicted of the offense of simple battery shall be punished as for a misdemeanor. © Any person who commits the offense of simple battery against a person who is 65 years of age or older or against a female who is pregnant at the time of the offense shall, u