The Altera Centauri collection has been brought up to date by Darsnan. It comprises every decent scenario he's been able to find anywhere on the web, going back over 20 years.
25 themes/skins/styles are now available to members. Check the select drop-down at the bottom-left of each page.
Call To Power 2 Cradle 3+ mod in progress: https://apolyton.net/forum/other-games/call-to-power-2/ctp2-creation/9437883-making-cradle-3-fully-compatible-with-the-apolyton-edition
Attorneys are regarded as officers of the court. That means, among other things, that they are sworn to support the system, the same way cops and judges do. It also means that they cannot knowingly allow that system to be subverted.
No, I did not steal that from somebody on Something Awful.
A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds. --Ralph Waldo Emerson
Floyd, I might actually be concerned that you'd start popping off guv'mint officials left and right if I thought you were anything but a wannabe poser who needs an extreme philosophy to give meaning to his sad little life.
"My nation is the world, and my religion is to do good." --Thomas Paine
"The subject of onanism is inexhaustable." --Sigmund Freud
Attorneys are regarded as officers of the court. That means, among other things, that they are sworn to support the system, the same way cops and judges do. It also means that they cannot knowingly allow that system to be subverted.
Exactly so, but I can work to change the system.
Floyd, I might actually be concerned that you'd start popping off guv'mint officials left and right if I thought you were anything but a wannabe poser who needs an extreme philosophy to give meaning to his sad little life.
Why would you be worried at all? I never said I wanted to go around popping anyone
"So Floyd... playing Devil's Advocate here. Let's say they didn't have a warrant. It's okay to start shooting the cops then?"
Originally posted by Guynemer on the first page. That's what started this. If you haven't noticed most threads get jacked eventually, this one still deals withthe original topic to a degree.
So I don't care who created the thread, as long as this topic is under discussion, I'll respond, but since you are doing half the responding let's not be hypocritical. You btired of the discussion? Do your part and stop discussing it then.
And stop flaming me. Period.
Well, according to the story the cops were in the act of nicely asking the lady of the house for permission to search at the time when Talent opened fire, so they may in fact have not had a warrant.
There have indeed been times when American cops entered homes with the intent to harm the occupants. The Rampart scandal comes to my mind. The thing is DF, that if you shoot a cop coming on to your property it's will indeed be your burden to prove that you had good reason to believe that your life was at stake AND that he was acting outside the law. I am assuming that the incident occured in conditions where the fact of your shooting the man isn't in question.
"I say shoot'em all and let God sort it out in the end!
Well, according to the story the cops were in the act of nicely asking the lady of the house for permission to search at the time when Talent opened fire, so they may in fact have not had a warrant.
Yes I'm aware of that - my argument is about illegal search and seizure.
The thing is DF, that if you shoot a cop coming on to your property it's will indeed be your burden to prove that you had good reason to believe that your life was at stake AND that he was acting outside the law.
Yes, I know, however I also think that it's reasonable to assume that anyone (not including children who don't know better) who illegally enters your house is potentially a threat to your life, and if it's a cop he's acting illegally by definition.
In Texas, if someone breaks into my house I can shoot them.
we are arguing about whether or not its right, not whether or not the "great state" of Texas lets you.
This is America. I can sue anyone for anything
Let me be the first to say:
RED HERRING!
They often are, I don't dispute that.
Well there goes your "System will conspire against me" theory.
Again, the operative phrase was "aggressively approaching within a certain distance."
OH yeah, nothing subjective or dubious there. Think about what would happen if courts actually accepted such nonsense. Anyone could shoot anyone and justify such an action by saying "they looked agressive".
BTW didn't you say that it was wrong to shoot or kill someone for assault before via IM? What a hypocrite you are.
That's OK. I'm used to criticism and can accept it with a good attitude while discussing the matter calmly.
Yeah right.
Shooting joggers for "looking agressive" isn't calm Floyd: that's paranoia in its purest form.
No, what's right and wrong have nothing to do with what anyone thinks.
we are arguing about whether or not its right, not whether or not the "great state" of Texas lets you.
I think it's certainly right.
RED HERRING!
No ****, that's what the was for. Lighten up
OH yeah, nothing subjective or dubious there. Think about what would happen if courts actually accepted such nonsense. Anyone could shoot anyone and justify such an action by saying "they looked agressive".
Courts DO accept such "nonsense." I believe the distance is 15 feet but I'm not certain about that.
BTW didn't you say that it was wrong to shoot or kill someone for assault before via IM? What a hypocrite you are.
First off, the topic we were discussing had 0 to do with real life, and frankly is not fit to be brought back up on here, so don't make allusions to the conversation.
And killing someone who assaults you IS illegal and wrong, unless there is a legitimate threat to your life (or, I supppose, if they're breaking your bones or something).
What I said is pulling a gun on someone to prevent an assault is, AFAIK, perfectly legal and certainly morally justified.
Yeah right.
I see you're pretty obtuse if you can't pick up unsaid meanings.
Now, I have two requests for you: stop trolling me with some of the above bull****, and stop your high school debate tactics - those are frowned upon by the real world. Don't believe me? Try it in a college class.
I'm perfectly willing to discuss the merits of the argument, but I'm not gonna get drawn into a real argument with you.
either put up or shut up
though Lr might be using high school debate tactics, he's at least acting above elementary level. you behavior on this thread is nothing but reproachable. The only troll here is you.
"Speaking on the subject of conformity: This rotting concept of the unfathomable nostril mystifies the fuming crotch of my being!!! Stop with the mooing you damned chihuahua!!! Ganglia!! Rats eat babies!" ~ happy noodle boy
Some instances of Texas Law that allow arrest without warrant.
Does not have anything on this site about search and seizure though. If I get time this weekend, I'll see if I can find some laws on this.
"Art. 14.03. [214] [261] [249] Authority of peace officers
(a) Any peace officer may arrest, without warrant:
(1) persons found in suspicious places and under circumstances which reasonably show that such persons have been guilty of some felony, violation of Title 9, Chapter 42, Penal Code, breach of the peace, or offense under Section 49.02, Penal Code, or threaten, or are about to commit some offense against the laws;
(2) persons who the peace officer has probable cause to believe have committed an assault resulting in bodily injury to another person and the peace officer has probable cause to believe that there is danger of further bodily injury to that person;
(3) persons who the peace officer has probable cause to believe have committed the offense defined by Section 25.07, Penal Code (violation of Protective Order), if the offense is not committed in the presence of the peace officer; or
(4) persons who the peace officer has probable cause to believe have committed an assault resulting in bodily injury to a member of the person's family or household.
(b) A peace officer shall arrest, without a warrant, a person the peace officer has probable cause to believe has committed an offense under Section 25.07, Penal Code (violation of Protective Order), if the offense is committed in the presence of the peace officer.
(c) If reasonably necessary to verify an allegation of a violation of a protective order or of the commission of an assault against a member of the family or household, a peace officer shall remain at the scene of the investigation to verify the allegation and to prevent the further commission of family violence.
(d) A peace officer who is outside his jurisdiction may arrest, without warrant, a person who commits an offense within the officer's presence or view, if the offense is a felony, a violation of Title 9, Chapter 42, Penal Code, a breach of the peace, or an offense under Section 49.02, Penal Code. A peace officer making an arrest under this subsection shall, as soon as practicable after making the arrest, notify a law enforcement agency having jurisdiction where the arrest was made. The law enforcement agency shall then take custody of the person committing the offense and take the person before a magistrate in compliance with Article 14.06 of this code.
(e) The justification for conduct provided under Section 9.21, Penal Code, applies to a peace officer when the peace officer is performing a duty required by this article.
(f) In this article, "family," "household," and "member of a household" have the meanings assigned to those terms by Section 71.01, Family Code.
(g) A peace officer listed in Subdivision (1), (2), (3), (4), or (5), Article 2.12, who is licensed under Chapter 415, Government Code, and is outside of the officer's jurisdiction may arrest without a warrant a person who commits any offense within the officer's presence or view, except that an officer who is outside the officer's jurisdiction may arrest a person for a violation of Subtitle C, Title 7, Transportation Code, only if the officer is listed in Subdivision (4), Article 2.12. A peace officer making an arrest under this subsection shall as soon as practicable after making the arrest notify a law enforcement agency having jurisdiction where the arrest was made. The law enforcement agency shall then take custody of the person committing the offense and take the person before a magistrate in compliance with Article 14.06.
Acts 1965, 59th Leg., vol. 2, p. 317, ch. 722. Amended by Acts 1967, 60th Leg., p. 1735, ch. 659, § 9, eff. Aug. 28, 1967.
Amended by Acts 1981, 67th Leg., p. 1865, ch. 442, § 1, eff. Aug. 31, 1981; Acts 1985, 69th Leg., ch. 583, § 2, eff. Sept. 1, 1985; Subsec. (c) amended by Acts 1987, 70th Leg., ch. 68, § 1, eff. Sept. 1, 1987; Subsecs. (a), (b) amended by and (d), (e) added by Acts 1989, 71st Leg., ch. 740, § 1, eff. Aug. 28, 1989. Amended by Acts 1991, 72nd Leg., ch. 542, § 9, eff. Sept. 1, 1991. Subsecs. (a), (d) amended by Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 900, § 3.02, eff. Sept. 1, 1994; Subsecs. (a), (b) amended by Acts 1995, 74th Leg., ch. 76, § 14.17, eff. Sept. 1, 1995; Subsec. (g) added by Acts 1995, 74th Leg., ch. 829, § 1, eff. Aug. 28, 1995; Subsec. (g) amended by Acts 1999, 76th Leg., ch. 62, § 3.02, eff. Sept. 1, 1999; amended by Acts 1999, 76th Leg., ch. 210, § 2, eff. May 24, 1999.
I thought it was interesting. And further down on that website, it showed some contradictory laws to these as well.
Quite confusing if you ask me.
But I believe it is illegal to kill someone either for trespassing , breaking and entering or illegal search and seizure. Use of deadly force is legal only when life and limb is at stake.
Under all States. Texas included. But this is what I have gathered. As I said , it is confusing and I may be wrong on that part. The Law is certainly interesting if not confusing.
Yes, those laws certainly exist. My point was more geared towards situations in which a police officer is acting outside the law.
But I believe it is illegal to kill someone either for trespassing , breaking and entering or illegal search and seizure. Use of deadly force is legal only when life and limb is at stake.
Tresspassing on your property, no you can't kill the person.
But I'm about 99% sure that if someone is in your house, that gives you reasonable cause to believe your life is in danger.
I doubt a cop can be legally killed for illegal search and seizure, but logically if you can shoot a normal burglar, you should be able to shoot a cop for committing the same crime from my POV.
No, what's right and wrong have nothing to do with what anyone thinks.
Exactly so what does the issue being right or wrong "in your book" have to do with anything?
I think it's certainly right.
OK, and I asked for why you thought this, not whether the "great state of texas" let you which is what you were implying.
No ****, that's what the was for. Lighten up
Actually a doesn't automatically mean your point wasn't serious. It could mean you believe my point to be ridiculous or you point to be obvious. Maybe you should try actually refuting my criticisms and quite making dull jokes to defend your empty dogma.
Courts DO accept such "nonsense." I believe the distance is 15 feet but I'm not certain about that.
Some evidence please.
First off, the topic we were discussing had 0 to do with real life, and frankly is not fit to be brought back up on here, so don't make allusions to the conversation.
And killing someone who assaults you IS illegal and wrong, unless there is a legitimate threat to your life (or, I supppose, if they're breaking your bones or something).
What I said is pulling a gun on someone to prevent an assault is, AFAIK, perfectly legal and certainly morally justified.
Actually it is relevant in that it shows you to be a hypocrite. Also how do you *know* whether an assaulter will or will not threaten your life? Does he/she say? It seems like you are just making up subjective standards to try to support subjective standards. Person running towards you="looks" agrressive=possible assault=possible life threatening assault=justification for shooting that person. That's a little hard to accept floyd.
stop your high school debate tactics
If my tactics are high schoolish, that only means a high schooler can debate better then you Floyd.
I believe if anyone is trolling here....its YOU. You even admit that you make fallacious arguments "cause they're funny" . (They aren't btw).
I suggest you add something constructive to this thread instead of trolling me. And evreyone else.
As for your "secret meanings" you should actually try being direct. More people understand you that way. Its not my job to decode your posts.
j/k 
Tweet
Comment