If you're so versed in mental illness Mindfreak then you'd know the very first and foremost qualifier for a mental incompetency ruling is patient distress. The subject must have necessarily been clearly distressed for quite some time prior to committing any crime and folks just like you kept walking on right by saying it's not their problem. Until predictably he did something that is a problem for you.
That's why he gets a free pass.

As for the rape thing, you're not a qualified, trained police officer so that's why you get prosecuted for vigilanteism.

A homeless background can turn some people into raging idiots but far more often it actually impresses humility to the point of low self worth. In that case what is most likely is that this attacker was personally offended by the panhandler in an escalating fashion, ie. when he pulled over the panhandler becomes verbally aggressive towards a reasonable request (don't do offensive behaviour in public, it's unlawful behaviour), at that point however Lee showed his own lack of education by stepping outside the confines of what could've been, up until this point a lawful, citizen's arrest under the provisions of state law (for offensive behaviour in public, or for committing trade upon a public causeway again unlawful, or for creating an obstacle on a pedestrian walkway, again unlawful).

He could've lawfully restrained the panhandler if he became physically aggressive, and could've held him under arrest for public indecency and vagrancy until police arrived, and handed him over to them even restrained, and not broken a single law.

What he did was fall back into his own homeless experience and become aggressive himself. It's like he forgot about being civilized. Then pursuing this panhandler at a later time to commit a premeditated battery is just plain psychotic.

I think this Lee sounds like a megalomaniac. Betchya his wife wears sunglasses and tries to cover her face a lot. His children seen and not heard, etc.

But I've no doubt the panhandler contributed to the initial altercation with as much aggression as anybody, even a psychotic weasel you still have to fire up to get him going to all the trouble of coming after you. It's kind of a case of karma for both of them, I don't think I'd have great sympathy for either.

Anyone doing a car project around here?

I'm doing up an old 80s Mercedes 190E, the i6 in an AMG style.
I like the rumble and upshift chirp/twitch in something that looks at first like a 4-cylinder shopping trolley. At high speed it's astonishingly quick and stable, damn they built these things good.
Fast as an injected 5.0 litre, gets 500km from a 55 litre tank, safe as a track car in an accident (the 190E model was designed for european touring car race tracks, there's reinforcement all under the dash, along the doors, real track car roll bars built in from factory on that model, way exceeded all domestic safety standards in the 80s).

What are some of your iron-loves, members?
The US has a massive reproduction parts industry I've noticed, must be tons of you guys doing up cars.

The foundation of the 'constitution is in the magna carta, which was the european common government of the 14th century.

The governing system you're using, not the specific document itself, is actually 700 years old, only marginally more advanced than the arabs, and completely missed out on all the evolution of peerage and parliamentary representation.

You're just using a really old mediaeval form of government barely any more evolved than the arabs. You don't get that, I know, but there you go.

Sounds to me like CPS legislation in that state definitely needs reform.

Even if they were acting in what they believed was good conscience, the authorities in this case have a glaring disparity between their paperwork and their actions.

They're claiming the right to commit the child to an institution but are using CPS legislation and not CAT legislation to do it.
That's dishonest, and is making use of a legal loophole to avoid the burden of proof for their rulings, they're acting like judge, jury and executioner before the case even sees the inside of a courtroom. It's undemocratic in the extreme.

To commit a person on the grounds of psychosis, you need a CAT qualification.
To take a child from a parent on the grounds of CPS, you need to demonstrate evidence of child abuse.

The authorities in this case are tying to do one thing, using the rules for doing the other thing.
They should lose a federal court case, but you may need to get the venue changed to a federal (supreme) court because obviously the laws in that particular state are criminally retarded to favour the most unqualified authorities over the rights of individuals.

There's also a declassified CIA file in the public record dated to the late fifties iirc, in which some brothels were used as fronts to administer LSD to american civilians without their knowledge, visitors to the brothel kept under surveillance to record the effect upon their personal and professional lives.

It was part of a psychological warfare study to compete with the Russians at that stage.
Before that it was ze germans.
Before that the Romans I guess.

It's strange that americans just don't get all this world terrorism, reds under the bed, muslim bombvest extremists, it's all the same fictions about the last fictional alien invaders a major power was going on about.
It's so childish the pentagon and whitehouse international and national securities policies. Infantile. You guys should vote all the politicians out and select a new set of better ones.

The shorthand answer to your question is:
In a dense universe entropy is to form subatomic structures. Entropy happens by itself.
Construction of physicality from latent energy is an act of falling to rest from activity, not going to activity from rest.
The universe builds a house by going to sleep and the act of resting builds a house; doing nothing requires maintenance of a higher state of energetic activity than creating things.

The description of a "Big Bang" is what it looks like to an astronomer at first glance, like the universe was once in a gigantic explosion everywhere at once and the residual energy can be measured in the depths of space in every direction.
But it's actually a cooling of a higher energy state.
And it's this cooling which forms subatomic structures, molecules, and physical objects, from the energy.
This is an act of rest, not activity.

The philosophical challenge to cosmology is the way we try to view the clearly defined mathematical models describing the way things work.

What you're trying to do is subjectively imagine an objective reality, by definition you'll run into confusion.

There is nowhere outside the universe to observe the universe, there is no subjective point of view which is not contained within the physical universe.

What this means is that the universe was never compacted from a third person perspective, this third person perspective doesn't exist and is the realm of religion.
The entire universe being very dense means that it is the same size to you, but its composition in subatomic and mathematical terms is different. In fact at that time it couldn't support life due to its makeup so only your perspective is there, a real you isn't.

The definition of a dense, early universe is a mathematical description, it's not a physical one. It's like black hole structures, the ones you see in movies are expressions of math and not real objects. The real thing would look like a very exotic stellar environment, an alien place moving amongs other places that changes the rules in those places. It's a bit like the first you see of a hurricane is some rain and stormy weather, it's later you experience a virtual environmental shift with incredible destructive power and it's only if you're in a spaceship you see the full hurricane for what it is.
This is like the difference between the math of something, and the experience of it.

It's scientific non-sequiteur to imagine one as the other. It's why we do thought-experiments to imagine just one piece of the math and that's easier to make sense of, like say, one particular part of QM responsible for the state of the early proto-universe. And the thought experiment might be about a cat in a box, not trying to view a compacted universe from a third person God perspective, coming out of the gate it kills any science to the exercise.

It's not as complicated a social statement as you appear to allude, Tawt. Shut off your powers of the mind for a moment, and try reading between the lines before unleashing a nuclear arsenal of self hypnosis about the situation.

Most people in developed nations don't even self govern day to day, plain statistics from crime to commercial marketing clearly demonstrate this. We're in a position to be simply led by the nose and run on autopilot, just do what the law and media tell you and you're a terrific american.

Really, most people just go about their business, especially personal/social business on autopilot and whimsy.
Okay so then what we're cultured to do is rationalize animist response to make it humanist. This is what reading between the lines is about.

What I'm saying is that the woman you went on this first date with, she just didn't like you. Her (somewhat limited) rationalization was that she didn't like scotsmen very much.
Her point, is that she wasn't interested in you upon meeting. Doesn't really matter why or what the claim is. It's whimsy anyway and from someone who clearly doesn't self govern.

Kind of prohibits compatability coming out of the gate, no?
My point is that were you to level your powers (sic) toward becoming the ultimate gigalo at best you could only achieve some nookie with someone you'll quickly find annoying for her personality and mind, someone who doesn't think before she acts unless forced to do so, someone whom dismisses others out of hand, someone pretentious and ignorant, for her age, grossly unevolved. You'd wind up the abusive part of an abusive relationship towards, always disappointed with who she is as a person, things like that hurt people.

In other words my point is that you're the one screening the women you date, and you're doing it intentionally, but you don't seem to keep in conscious memory that you're doing this. You should, so you can self govern it.
Some women you'll intentionally discourage within the first moments of meeting, before you can even catch it consciously, some of them might be accidentally misrepresenting too, and you might be sending the wrong body language too soon for that one.
But once you've laid out that body language, women just react without being conscious of it.

Most of the time when women say they're not interested, they mean by your body language you don't look sincerely interested, and that's what they're not interested in. Even if you stand there saying you're interested, it contradicts what they see with their eyes and that can start to intimidate them.

So watch yourself before assessing the response of another towards you, because it's not conducted within a closed system and a neutral environment. You're the influence.

I was chatting to a good friend about a joint project on the phone the other night and was scratching my brain trying to come up with some really good examples of movie scenes depicting "space combat scenarios" using good science,

And I mean obviously films like Star Wars lose out with magical technologies and unreal camerawork during space scenes (the spacecraft move as if aircraft in an atmosphere, not very realistic).

But the BSG remake series I applauded for its fairly realistic flight/combat scenes in space. A Star Wars film would only be improved using the same camerawork and SFX.

Then I was thinking about how many other film examples there were of good "starfighter" science and really had to start scratching my brain.
Can anyone jog my memory? :)

Well technically all legislation involving the term "intoxicated" is extremely interpretive and designed to be that way.

Under the letter of the law, how many people here can answer, what is an intoxicated person? When is a bar patron intoxicated in a legal definition?

Answer, strict law as written: When they have had one drink.

Anyone who has put any alcohol or other intoxicant in their body in any amount, is by law, intoxicated. The rub comes in how intoxicated are they? Too intoxicated to drive a car? That's impaired judgement, not intoxication. Intoxication is any amount of an intoxicant in your body.

The law is written this way on purpose. It's like a legal "code".

It gives the right for licensed venues to refuse service to any patron using their own personal judgement. If it later turns out that a patron refused service for (excessive) intoxication actually only had one drink, but was intellectually retarded and seemed drunk, he still cannot sue the venue or its staff because he did have one drink, and that legally makes him intoxicated even where is normal judgement isn't impaired.

So the whole trick comes down to personal judgement. Half the time you're actually getting rid of trouble-makers or aggressive patrons using intoxication laws, they probably act like that all the time but they had a drink so you can remove them.

This is how it's designed to work.

I've been in the industry about 15yrs (but I'm back in the auto industry currently), I did recently do licensing refreshers, you have to study the current laws as part of that.

Basically, the venue proprietary gets fined 6-figures and the bartender who served an intoxicated person gets fined 5-figures. It's mandatory sentencing, so excuses like the boss instructed you to serve the intoxicated person, too bad.

It is a pain in the butt for bartenders because the OP is correct, licenced venues want to make money, they don't do that by turning customers away, often the venue senior staff will try to please customers rather than contribute to any altercation, so especially when patrons become drunken and rowdy, they get aggressive and irrational, the senior supervisors let them run the show all the more in an avoidance protocol. It actually takes bouncers on the floor to change that, and bartenders have to individually sequester their assistance with any patrons they refuse service, which become irate.

In effect by making it illegal of the bartender and not his senior supervisors for him to serve intoxicated patrons, you may just be making criminals of people which simply need their job so badly they must follow any instructions from a superior.
But to be legal what the bartender must do is tell the boss to shove it up his backside and make the calls on service refusal himself, under his own judgement and authority. And the law does give him this right, but it may lose him his job.

That's how it plays down.

lol big time @ funky franky, her instant response, "so what's your point?"

lol I just found that intimidatingly cute

Women baiting other women into an argument or a point of view or anything involving more than one talking and emotions.

it's a newb mistake o_O

Mate seriously, not an uncommon story when you're talking to real human beings on the web and not just listening to CNN on the tv...
I lost most of my family as a kid, sisters went into foster care and I wound up in church youth shelters. I had knifefights on train stations by 15 and had to deal like a fully grown adult when my brain was still such a total kid I can only look back and laugh at myself for what a first class idiot I was. But hey, people thrown into unusual situations react unusually.

What I'm saying is social constructs like dating are like playing theatre compared to getting stuck in the leg with a knife at a party because better you than some 16yr old chick he was gonna stick it in, right? Because that's how you feel about yourself living like that.

Dating? Yeah scammers, wrong girls, there's no big emergency just saying listen sorry but I'm not into this, byes now. It's like your life is in perspective.

Yeah well modelling portfolios or myspace angles are just as non-sequiteur as no photo.

I get drawn in by people who have photos of just a regular looking person doing something perfectly regular in a normal way that's like meeting someone in real life just casually, and saying, hey hello, you look like a nice person, how's things going over there? You know, $hit like that. Normal.

Other stuff, from modelling to myspace photos just make me think we've got nothing in common, same with no photo. I've found, leading a confident but lawful existence, I've simply got nothing to fear about a transparency and open door policy day to day with everyone I encounter. No problem. Mess me about and I can always do something just fine to take care of it no worries. But why hope for the worst when you're already up and planned for it? Hope for the best, and treat everything like it is the best. Never had a problem I couldn't deal with easily, not even a stress.

it's like a horde of women hiding in flowers to watch and gossip about you, absolutely terrifying! They attack when you go to sleep, little vampire witches, you wake up having to kick them off...I should probably be quiet now lalala

I knew Valentina because I wanted to do her, after joining the space program, as a kid. You can think that as a kid, pefectly normal.
It was being able to list the entire space shuttle launch procedure in all 165 points checklist that might've been a bit abnormal for a 12yr old but I like to think of myself as artistic over autistic.

eg. There is a God! True or false?

False, because you must begin with a falsifiable hypothesis.

There is no God! True or false?

False, because you must begin with a falsifiable hypothesis.

Do we get science yet? :D

Well addressing truth in scientific terms is really only one particular point of view which seeks to ecompass all points of view, ie.:

You must begin with a falsifiable hypothesis.
Testable results of reproducible experimentation, and
Observation in nature.
Subject to peer review.

And there we have scientific method. Everything, everything, everything else is up for conjecture.