TexasCHLforum.com

lawrnk wrote:

dustyb wrote:I live near a small town, with no ordinances against discharging a firearm in the city limits, and still to the best of my knowledge, no one brought the New Year in with gunfire, or ever has. It must be an "urban" thing. People still shoot fireworks here (no ordinance against that either).

It appears to be a very urban thing. I think this is most prevelant is very bad parts of town. I am in a planned community with 4,000 homes. Did not hear a single firearm, even though I suspect my neighbors are armed to the teeth.

Seems also to be a "cultural" thing. Trying hard not to come off as being biased, the celebratory gunfire seems to occur largely in Hispanic neighborhoods.

There are also other nationalities that, in their own countries, participate in such rituals. I remember seeing a video of the late, unlamented, former dictator of Iraq doing so.

txinvestigator wrote:A citizen can only arrest for felonies committed in his presence or view, and misdemeanor crimes against the public peace. What would you arrest a person for who fired a gun into the air?

Well, if there are any sufficiently tall buildings close enough to be targeted, 22.05(b) Deadly Conduct could apply, for a felony 3rd.

Of course, the smarter approach is likely to be restraining them as a means of using force in defense of the people they're endangering. Courts are more likely to look at that explanation as immediately necessary under the circumstances.

KD5NRH wrote:

txinvestigator wrote:A citizen can only arrest for felonies committed in his presence or view, and misdemeanor crimes against the public peace. What would you arrest a person for who fired a gun into the air?

Well, if there are any sufficiently tall buildings close enough to be targeted, 22.05(b) Deadly Conduct could apply, for a felony 3rd.

Perhaps, but it most cases that would be a sretch....

Of course, the smarter approach is likely to be restraining them as a means of using force in defense of the people they're endangering. Courts are more likely to look at that explanation as immediately necessary under the circumstances.

Specifically, what laws would allow that? In use of force, it is "immediately necessary to prevent the others use or attempted use of unlawful force" or to "prevent the imminent commission of"

XDgal wrote:Thanks Jim, I guess I need to get cable. I keep hearing about Mythbusters, and would love to see it. My calculations agree with theirs pretty close. Using various muzzle velocities, I came up with 8,000 to 11,000 ft.

If you have a fast connection you can download episodes from the internet. I havent watched live tv in years. I download them and watch them when i want. Plus they are already edited to be commercial free. I use http://www.tvtorrents.com

rm9792 wrote:If you have a fast connection you can download episodes from the internet. I havent watched live tv in years. I download them and watch them when i want. Plus they are already edited to be commercial free. I use http://www.tvtorrents.com

You can watch legit episodes from the network site, or you can use a torrent. We have another word for the latter: "stealing". The (very successful, lately) MPAA/RIAA suits put the valuation of pirated programs into felony territory. No thanks.

I also don't watch live TV, but I have a solution: DirecTiVo. Perfectly legal, and paid for.

No one is getting sued over tv shows, they are publicly broadcast. Music and movies are whats being pursued. You are correct that the networks themselves are allowing free downloads of shows, so how is it stealing?

All this is why I just stick to fireworks if anything

Thats all we did was fireworks. Bought some of the more expensive ones that do 30 shots and such. They were fun. Bought some ones shaped like rockets about a foot tall and they were not so fun. after a couple not only didnt fly up but actually curved up, over then down into the woods we quit shooting them.

rm9792 wrote:No one is getting sued over tv shows, YET they are publicly broadcast. Music and movies are whats being pursued. You are correct that the networks themselves are allowing free downloads of shows, so how is it stealing?

Sorry, had to add that comment. TV shows may be freely broadcast, but they are still copyrighted and reserved, as I understand it. One reason for no suits recently is that we were all sued for it a long time ago. I seem to recall a settlement way back where there is a royalty paid to the TV industry for each blank videotape sold. It was just for this reason.

But, if you download it from Torrent, you obtained it illegally and could be sued still, IMO. Also, not all TV shows are broadcast. The ones sent out over the cable are an entirely different breed of cat from on air tv. They are actually paid for by the user, just like a movie.

Obviously, IANAL, and I could be wrong on my understanding of these laws or memory or the suit.

srothstein wrote: But, if you download it from Torrent, you obtained it illegally and could be sued still, IMO.

This is incorrect in generality. Torrents are simply packets of software or data and not illegal by simply being a torrent. The torrent was developed as a means to distribute large files when bandwidth was narrowly available, I.E. dialup and in the early days when the internet was simply between schools and DOD offices (before Al Gore invented the internet as we know it). A torrent breaks up a large file into bite sized pieces that can be mirrored from several sites at once or individually.

There are still many legitimate uses. For instance if I am a developer working on a project with someone from East Kayatz and several others. A torrent allows a portion of code to be sent that may need attention withouth zipping up the whole thing. Let's say I am redistributing a GNU program but have limited space on my site/server. I can have it broken up and have others mirror different packets. This is peer-to-peer. there is also the case where the file is HUGE and I might have limited time per session, torrents can pick up where they left off.

There are also programs and shows with limited redistribution and open licenses. There are programs that were open broadcast and are in public domain. Some production companies will use torrents to distribute their products. Torrents are not illegal simply because they are torrents. If you own the rights, have permission or the software/data in question is in the public domain, they are legal and in many cases expedient.

Where they have come into ill repute, is with their decentralized mirroring of packets they lend themselves well to surreptitious redistribution. It is difficult to track and difficult to prosecute. BTW, Canada has very liberal redistribution laws but you can download a torrent that is legal there and still get busted if the pooter is here in the states. The US is a lot more stinky about it than most other places. Most torrent hosting sites now will remove something if it is found to be in violation or the written objection by the rightful owner.