AutoZone, Not very Good

[O Really]

It's not a liberal thing, Colonel - it's a simple issue of logic. If it's hopeless to have gun laws because some will not obey them, it's hopeless to have any law. Name one law - one - that nobody has ever disobeyed.

[neoplacebo]

I might have to add the colonel to my list of people who should be disarmed, which until now only includes the former sheriff of bipolar and oversexed fame.

[Colonel Taylor]

Gee why even be a member of a forum with the libs here with their mind reading abilities no one has to put forth a comment the know it all. And what they don't know they just lie about.

So, Colonel, if the principle expressed in your avatar really does make sense, could you name us one law that the same principle would NOT apply to? Meaning that if nobody should bother with gun laws because some will not obey them, why bother to have any law at all. Your principle is either true, or it's not. If it's true for gun laws, it would be true for any law. Or maybe you could tell us a law it would not apply to?

Point is liberals keep talking of common sense gun laws.

No one has talked about gun laws here besides you, other than O Really pointing out the logical fallacy you posted that keeps sailing over your head.

Of course, we can all see what's going on. You got all wingnutty about a link of mine, assumed it was a commentary on gun laws and, despite my saying it wasn't, once you get a stupid notion in your head no common sense or English literacy ever finds it way in.

Please tell us WHAT GUN LAW criminal will obey?

Ones where the penalties are severe and the risk of getting caught is greater than the potential reward, like all laws.

I obey laws, something your liberal friends made fun of me at one point for pointing out.

I made fun of you because you were calling me a "follower" in the same breath. You are a confused victim, again.

If I remember she said she didn't follow them.

In the tradition of Jesus, the original Tea Party, Gandhi and King I break some laws and accept the consequences. We get that you're terrified of risk in furtherance of your principles. It's all just keyboard muscles with you.

Ahh to be a Liberal.

Wow, you actually believe that cons don't break laws! How stupid is that?

Laws and rules are for others right?

You started this thread because you object to there being consequences for rule-breaking. It's a hoot when you lose track of your own theme.

Argue with yourself now, we'll watch.

Do you even realize that your foolishness, confusion, self-contradictions and paranoia are a stronger argument for strict gun laws than any anti-gun lib could ever hope to make?

[Stinger]

It's not a liberal thing, Colonel - it's a simple issue of logic.

Now that's just mean.

You know Colonel Sanders can't do that.

[Stinger]

Gee why even be a member of a forum with the libs here with their mind reading abilities no one has to put forth a comment the know it all.

English translation, please.

[neoplacebo]

Gee why even be a member of a forum with the libs here with their mind reading abilities no one has to put forth a comment the know it all.

English translation, please.

I believe what the above means is that, after all this time, we know pretty much what the colonel will say about any given subject, so there's really no reason for him to be a member of the forum since most of us can predict, damn near verbatim, what his reply to any given rational post will be. But I'm just guessing.....

[O Really]

So, Colonel - You still looking for that law that is 100% obeyed? Maybe you could ask our alleged narc if he thinks drug laws should be dropped simply because "criminals won't obey them." Seems to me a lot of criminals are not obeying laws against murder, assault, burglary, robbery, auto theft, not to mention traffic laws like speeding, turn signals, stop signs, yada. Should we laugh at all these and say than anyone who supports them is a "special kind of stupid"?

The question is clear, and is not a left/right issue: Does the principle in your avatar make sense, and therefore we should discard all laws that "criminals won't obey" or should we keep the laws in place and admit that it's the character portrayed in your avatar that's really a 'special kind of stupid"? Pick one - there are no other alternatives.

[O Really]

Hey, the Colonel just solved the immigration issue - "You really think illegal immigrants are going to obey immigration laws? You're a special kind of stupid, aren't you?" Don't bother to make any immigration laws, you won't have any violators.

[k9nanny]

This is so true. I think it's all about liability is all. Which sucks when someone can't see to adjust for common sense.
There's a lot of this going on even here in Henderson County. I mentioned a few stores who no longer repair their outdoor camera's (even having them removed) because if they work there is a feeling of safety by the customer therefore making the store liable. I was ridiculed for saying so but twice now in the local paper there was a story about camera's not working so a thug got away. Reason, they are now not liable for the customers safety. Same train of thought all about law suits I guess.

I would like to see an example of a store being held liable for the reasons you state. Home Owner Associations have dealt with the question of liability, and my (admittedly limited) research finds that the HOA is not held liable simply because of security cameras.
Are you saying if I get mugged in the Walmart parking lot, I can sue them for giving me a false sense of security?

Knowledge of traffic cams, security cams, surveillance cams might inspire the would-be crook to have second thoughts about his/her target. However, as far as I can tell, other than the deterrence factor, cameras are most useful as electronic "witnesses," and are by no means any guarantee of safety. I mean, banks get robbed all the time, don't they?

Thanksgiving weekend, a tenant, late with rent, met and blew away his landlord outside a Raleigh Carquest. Would the presence of cameras make the business liable for the murder? If a property owner foregoes cameras out of fear of liability, that's just plain stupid. I have a camera covering my parking lot so I can see who's approaching. If one customer jumps out of her car and blows away another customer, I'm in no way responsible.

More Det.Thorn "I know someone who" nonsense.

Edit: agreeing with O Really.

Yoo-hoo .... Thorny! When are you going to answer my questions? Perhaps your silence is your way of admitting you're wrong again.

[O Really]

As I mentioned earlier, the actual liability is with cameras that are either fake or not maintained. Here's an explanation from a publication not connected with the real "Homeland Security"...
http://www.homelandsecuritynewswire.com ... y-exposure

[Colonel Taylor]

As I mentioned earlier, the actual liability is with cameras that are either fake or not maintained. Here's an explanation from a publication not connected with the real "Homeland Security"...
http://www.homelandsecuritynewswire.com ... y-exposure

I'm not going back to look but I do believe I said they weren't getting them repaired and even removing them.
And I also sited two examples right here in Henderson County with Camera's that don't work.

[k9nanny]

As I mentioned earlier, the actual liability is with cameras that are either fake or not maintained. Here's an explanation from a publication not connected with the real "Homeland Security"...
http://www.homelandsecuritynewswire.com ... y-exposure

I get that, but I don't think that's where the Colonel/Detective was going.
Besides, how does a security camera in the basement laundry room protect the tenant? It may or may not deter a crook, and it may or may not identify the crook. Unless a camera is monitored 24/7, I don't think it's reasonable for anyone to expect the security system to protect him/her from crime. I know I wouldn't be all la-tee-da and careless were I, say, pumping gas in the middle of the night.

Thorn's premise is that the business owner is liable if he/she has a working camera. I would be interested in knowing if a business owner has, in fact, been held civilly or criminally liable under those circumstances.

[k9nanny]

As I mentioned earlier, the actual liability is with cameras that are either fake or not maintained. Here's an explanation from a publication not connected with the real "Homeland Security"...
http://www.homelandsecuritynewswire.com ... y-exposure

I'm not going back to look but I do believe I said they weren't getting them repaired and even removing them.
And I also sited two examples right here in Henderson County with Camera's that don't work.

You still haven't answered my question. If I get mugged in the Walmart parking lot, is Walmart liable because I know they have cameras, so I don't have to take any responsibility for my safety?

I'm watching my parking lot right now; the camera is there for my safety.

[Colonel Taylor]

As I mentioned earlier, the actual liability is with cameras that are either fake or not maintained. Here's an explanation from a publication not connected with the real "Homeland Security"...
http://www.homelandsecuritynewswire.com ... y-exposure

I get that, but I don't think that's where the Colonel/Detective was going.
Besides, how does a security camera in the basement laundry room protect the tenant? It may or may not deter a crook, and it may or may not identify the crook. Unless a camera is monitored 24/7, I don't think it's reasonable for anyone to expect the security system to protect him/her from crime. I know I wouldn't be all la-tee-da and careless were I, say, pumping gas in the middle of the night.

Thorn's premise is that the business owner is liable if he/she has a working camera. I would be interested in knowing if a business owner has, in fact, been held civilly or criminally liable under those circumstances.

Stop by and ask the Smoke House on 64 in Hendersonville? They had an attempted abduction there a year or so ago and it was later found out the camera's don't work.

[Colonel Taylor]

As I mentioned earlier, the actual liability is with cameras that are either fake or not maintained. Here's an explanation from a publication not connected with the real "Homeland Security"...
http://www.homelandsecuritynewswire.com ... y-exposure

I'm not going back to look but I do believe I said they weren't getting them repaired and even removing them.
And I also sited two examples right here in Henderson County with Camera's that don't work.

You still haven't answered my question. If I get mugged in the Walmart parking lot, is Walmart liable because I know they have cameras, so I don't have to take any responsibility for my safety?

I'm watching my parking lot right now; the camera is there for my safety.

How would I know I'm not an Attorney. But there as to be a pretty good reason why these stores aren't getting them repaired or replaced.

[O Really]

[sigh] working camera, no problem - except that the quality of image is often too fuzzy to do much good in court.
No camera, no problem - nobody is required to have electronic surveillance.
Fake or faulty camera - big potential problem.

Most security experts (one of whom I'm NOT), still generally believe the value outweighs the risk.

[rstrong]

[sigh] working camera, no problem - except that the quality of image is often too fuzzy to do much good in court.
No camera, no problem - nobody is required to have electronic surveillance.
Fake or faulty camera - big potential problem.

I had a 720p camera constantly recording in my car. I still had to be pretty much on someone's bumper to read the license plate. Face recognition doesn't work well at standard definition unless the person walks right up to the camera. A camera overlooking a parking lot will only confirm that a crime happened. It won't be much help in identification.

If they can sue you for having a fake or faulty camera, they can sue you for having a standard definition camera instead of a now cheap and available 1080p one.

[O Really]

If they can sue you for having a fake or faulty camera, they can sue you for having a standard definition camera instead of a now cheap and available 1080p one.

'Zactly. And there's reasonable expectation that that will occur.

Here's one good explanation... http://www.securityinfowatch.com/articl ... ce-cameras

Here's another discussion - not entirely on liability, but interesting nonetheless.... http://www.constitutionproject.org/pdf/ ... ation4.pdf

[Stinger]

Gee why even be a member of a forum with the libs here with their mind reading abilities no one has to put forth a comment the know it all.

English translation, please.

I believe what the above means is that, after all this time, we know pretty much what the colonel will say about any given subject, so there's really no reason for him to be a member of the forum since most of us can predict, damn near verbatim, what his reply to any given rational post will be. But I'm just guessing.....

Definition of VERBATIM

: in the exact words : word for word

Verbatim???!!!! Hell, I can't even read and understand the shit, much less predict it verbatim.

[k9nanny]

Stop by and ask the Smoke House on 64 in Hendersonville? They had an attempted abduction there a year or so ago and it was later found out the camera's don't work.

Would a camera have stopped the attempted abduction?
If there was a sign announcing the presence of cameras, the alleged abductor must not have cared.

O Really's link mentions ATM cameras. OK- the message is not Hey, k9. We've got you covered. You don't need to be aware of your surroundings; we're handling that for you.

The message is to remind the crooks that their crime will be caught on camera.

You still haven't answered my question. If I get mugged in the Walmart parking lot, is Walmart liable because I know they have cameras, so I don't have to take any responsibility for my safety?

How would I know I'm not an Attorney. But there as to be a pretty good reason why these stores aren't getting them repaired or replaced.

So you made up that whole thing about liability? You seemed to know earlier in the thread.

It seems to be an unsettled question. I still say having cameras is no guarantee of safety, and anyone who thinks so is pretty naive.