Carbon Motors TX7 “available for delivery in 2013″

According to the Carbon Motors website, the company will begin building the newest addition to their vehicle lineup in 2013.  “Production is slated to begin in late 2013 ahead of full-scale production of the Carbon E7.” Our community leaders tell us that they haven’t been in contact with company officials in many months, so … what does this mean? Is Connersville totally out of the picture now? According to caranddriver.com the TX7 will have a $150k price tag.

Below is from the Carbon website.

ORDER YOURS NOW!

Available for delivery in 2013, the Carbon Motors TX7 is a breakthrough Multi Mission Vehicle with integrated command, surveillance, prisoner transport and personnel carrying capabilities in one highly attractive, cost-effective package.

ORDER: THE LINE FORMS HERE!

You asked for purpose built products and we heard you. Demand for Carbon’s products is unquestioned and with deliveries of the TX7 beginning in 2013, you don’t want to be left behind! Order your TX7 or reserve a fleet of E7’s today!

Carbon Motors Begins Taking Orders Globally for 2013 Carbon TX7

INDIANA — In a bold strategic move forward, Carbon Motors announced today that it will begin taking orders for the Carbon TX7 – a breakthrough, Multi Mission Vehicle (MMV) offering integrated incident command, surveillance, prisoner transport and personnel carrying capabilities in an innovative and flexible package not available in the marketplace today (photos here). Production is slated to begin in late 2013 ahead of full-scale production of the Carbon E7.

The TX7 is powered by a V-8 clean diesel engine and 6-speed automatic transmission driving all four wheels in 4×4 configuration with 10-person seating capability. For communities promoting an environmentally responsible approach, the Company is planning to offer a Compressed Natural Gas (CNG) powertrain as an option. Innovations in power management, including piloting of certain solar array technologies, are also planned.

Law enforcement agencies currently deploy a variety of singularly focused, specialty vehicles in situations such as disaster management, search and rescue, warrant service, perimeter security, etc. These vehicles can range in price from several hundred thousand dollars, up to $2 million and carry extremely high operating costs.

The TX7 is positioned to bridge the gap between patrol vehicles and these highly specialized vehicles with a starting price of only $149,950. Its diversity allows for a more affordable and flexible vehicle that is deployable more frequently and under a broader scope of scenarios reducing government expenditures. Infrared, thermal imaging and weapons of mass destruction sensors – chemical, biological and radiation – further enhance its mission readiness.

The lower price point makes it more accessible to smaller agencies that may not consider purchasing one of the more specialized, premium positioned carriers or coaches. In some cases, the TX7 will increase the market opportunity for joint jurisdiction purchases among smaller agencies.

For the 638 law enforcement agencies that have already placed 24,442 reservations for the purpose-built Carbon E7 Pursuit and Surveillance Vehicle (PSV), Carbon Motors will offer special TX7 pricing. Deliveries of the TX7 are planned to commence during the second half of 2013. Orders may be placed at www.carbonmotors.com by authorized law enforcement authorities globally.

“As we announced in March, we have committed to secure the financing for the Carbon E7 privately, and the Carbon TX7 is an integral strategic part of moving Carbon Motors from a start-up company to a full operating company ahead of producing the highly sought after Carbon E7. We are focused on our long-term mission of becoming the global authority on law enforcement technology with a portfolio of purpose-built vehicles,” said William Santana Li, chairman and chief executive officer, Carbon Motors Corporation.

 

Industrial accident kills Connersville man in Rushville

Eric W. McKinney, 30, of Connersville  passed away on Dec. 22, 2012 reportedly due to a work related accident in Rushville, Indiana.
Below is a story from the Rushville Republican …

Man dies in INTAT accident

Missing person report takes tragic turn

RUSHVILLE — When a worker at INTAT Precision, Inc., 2148 North SR 3, did not return home from work Saturday a family member became worried and contacted the Rushville Police and Rush County Sheriff’s Department seeking information on the possibility of a traffic accident that may have delayed his arrival at his Fayette County residence.

What initially was filed as a missing person report took a tragic turn a short time later after Rushville Police officer Brent Campbell went to the foundry and located the missing man’s car still in the parking lot.

Rushville Chief of Police Craig Tucker, who was summoned to scene, said the missing man’s remains were found a short time later.

“During a check of the facility, officers located a deceased individual that is believed to be the missing person in question. It is determined that this deceased individual died as a result of an industrial accident,” Tucker said.

The chief continued by saying the Rushville Police Department and IOSHA are conducting a joint investigation into the matter and that as of Saturday night the Rush County Coroner’s Office was working to confirm the identity of the deceased.

Check www.rushvillerepublican.com for updates to this story as new information becomes available.

 

Guidelines for Saying No to Police Searches

One of the main powers that law enforcement officers carry is the power to intimidate citizens into voluntarily giving up their rights. Police are trained to believe in their authority and trained to perform their interactions with private citizens with confidence. It is their job to deal with problems and they learn to manage uncomfortable situations through strength. Most people, when confronted by police get a mild panic reaction, become anxious, and try to do whatever they can to minimize the time spent with the officer. Because of the imbalance of power between citizen and officer, when a law enforcement officer makes a strongly worded request, most people consent without realizing that they are giving up constitutional protections against improper meddling by the State in the private affairs of citizens.

A common situation is that of the traffic stop. A person is pulled over for a real or perceived vehicle violation and, after checking the driver’s license and registration, the officer asks the driver if they have any weapons or illegal drugs in their car. When the citizen answers “no”, the police officer asks (in the strongest language he can without demanding) to check that for himself. “Then you wouldn’t mind if I took a look in your trunk.” or “Why don’t you step out of your car.” Most people acquiesce to the ‘requests’ because they don’t realize they have the right to say no.

WHY YOU HAVE TO SAY “NO” CLEARLY

The Federal Supreme Court has ruled that as long as the police do not force an individual to do something, the individual is acting voluntarily, even if a normal person would feel very intimidated and would not reasonably feel they could say no. (see Florida v. Bostick, 1991) If you do what a policeman tells you to do before you are arrested, you are ‘voluntarily’ complying with their ‘requests’.

Unfortunately police will often try to push citizens to accept a search, to the point of ignoring when you say “no”. Its important to say very clearly “I do not consent to a warrantless search.” Or “This is a private event/home/place, you may not enter without a warrant.” Don’t simply answer questions about searches with a simple “yes” or “no”. See this case where drug police asked a confusing question and claimed they misunderstand the answer “yes” to mean they could search (October 24, 2000. Gregg County CODE officers, defendant Dockens, judge Steger, federal court, east district Texas).

Until you say “No, I don’t think I’d like to do that.” you are cooperating as a peer with the law enforcement officer who is trying to make the world safer. When you say “no” to a request by a police officer, you are asserting your lawful rights as a private citizen. If the officer demands you comply, then in most cases you have little choice. Usually, however, the officer is likely to try to convince you to comply voluntarily. Until and unless you say “no” and stick to it, the police don’t even need any real authority to tell you what to do.

WHAT A POLICEMAN CAN MAKE YOU DO

What a Law Enforcement Officer (LEO) can demand of a citizen depends heavily on the context of the order. Most generally, police are allowed by the courts to act as any reasonable private citizen would. They may ask questions, look through windows that they happen to be near, walk or drive in public areas, etc. Without a warrant or any suspicion of illegal activity, they are allowed to interact with other citizens, but they have a limited amount of authority to demand compliance, search, or detain people or things.

In highly volatile or dangerous situations, a LEO’s authority to require compliance is much higher than in non-threatening contexts. The Supreme Court has ruled (with Terry v. Ohio being one of the primary cases) that the police are allowed to protect themselves from potentially dangerous people or situations. Under the umbrella of “concern for safety” or “search for weapons” the police have wide latitude to do what they want and to order citizens to comply with their demands.

The Terry v. Ohio case created the “weapons search”, “terry search”, or “terry pat” exception to the 4th Amendment ‘probable cause requirement’ for searches. The court ruled that if a police officer “[has] reasonable cause to believe that [someone] might be armed” they can require they submit to a quick patdown. What this has meant is that it is now standard practice to pat down anyone that a LEO wants to, without the need for arrest, probable cause, or even suspicion of a crime.

Many police use weapons pats as a way to intimidate and harass citizens, since it is a power the courts have allowed them to use with little justification. Often a LEO will find something during their patdown which is clearly not a weapon which they would like to see, but this is beyond their Court-approved authority.

Also under the ‘concern for safety’ umbrella, police are given wide latitude by courts to ask individuals to comply with simple non-intrusive commands such as “stand over there” or “wait here for a moment”, but the line between order and request becomes very fuzzy when an officer starts telling people where to go unless the situation is volatile / dangerous. There are many stories of two (or more) individuals confronted by police ( one example ) whom the police intentionally separate to try to intimidate or to compare stories. This is generally a ‘fishing’ maneuver which would not fall under the ‘concern for safety’ umbrella.

During a stop for a traffic violation, police have the power to demand a proper driver’s license and other state-required documentation (registration, insurance). In most [ed-all?] states they also have the power to demand sobriety tests [ed - do they need reasonable suspicion of intoxication ?]. The courts have also given police the power to frisk a driver based on the Terry v. Ohio decision (the police should have some reason to think there is danger) and some decisions have even allowed an officer (with no suspicion or cause) to search the area around the driver’s seat. [ed-citation for this?]

When a private, law abiding citizen encounters police, the amount of intrusion a Law Enforcement Officer is allowed to demand is limited. Some areas have laws against “disobeying a police officer” or “obstructing an officer from their duties”, but the bounds of what officers can reasonably require someone not suspected of any other criminal activity in a peaceful situation have not been clearly drawn by the courts. If someone interferes with a police officer engaged in an arrest or investigation, police tend to have very little patience and will quickly threaten or implement detainment or arrest. Generally, courts give police wide latitude in executing their duties and disobeying a “reasonable” direct order from an officer could be prosecuted in most jurisdictions.

As an encounter proceeds, the police gather data that they can use to formulate ‘reasonable, articulable suspicion’ or (stronger) ‘probable cause’ that the individual has contraband or is involved in a crime. As the level of suspicion rises, so does the LEO’s authority to intrude into a person’s affairs. Once the level rises to ‘probable cause’ to believe that there is contraband in a vehicle, the Supreme Court has made some very disturbing decisions allowing the police broad power to search in certain cases, including the power to search closed containers without a warrant. (see United States v. Ross, 456 U.S. 798 (1982) )

In a recent decision (Wyoming v. Houghton, April 1999), the Supreme Court ruled that even passengers’ belongings, if left in the car, may be searched thoroughly if the driver is suspected of a crime.

In most states, you are not required to identify yourself or show the police your ID (unless you are in a vehicle). We have been unable to confirm that in Nevada that police try to charge people with obstruction of justice for people who refuse to identify themselves to police. However, if you choose to identify yourself, you are required to tell the truth. It is a crime to lie to federal police agents and it is a crime to give false identification to police in many areas [ed- find a cite for this?].

The Supreme Court has said: “A brief stop of a suspicious individual, in order to determine his identity or to maintain the status quo momentarily while obtaining more information, may be most reasonable in light of the facts known to the officer at the time.” Adams v. Williams, 407 U.S. 143, 146 (1972).

If you want to avoid long and unpleasant interactions with police, do not give them any reasons to suspect you of criminal activity. Courteously decline to participate in ‘fishing expeditions’ or any other actions you do not wish to perform.

Police may search you ‘incident to arrest’: after or while arresting someone, police are allowed to search the body of the person being arrested. Recent decisions by the Supreme Court have also allowed the police to do exhaustive searches of any vehicle the arrestee was in and any containers therein. The Supreme Court held “that the police may examine the contents of any open or closed container found within the passenger compartment, ‘for if the passenger compartment is within the reach of the arrestee, so will containers in it be within his reach.’” 453 U.S., at 460 (footnote omitted). See also Michigan v. Summers, 452 U.S. 692, 702 (1981).

In Pennsylvania v. Mimms, 434 U.S. 106 (1977), the Supreme Court “held that police Officers may order persons out of [463 U.S. 1032, 1048] an automobile during a stop for a traffic violation, and may frisk those persons for weapons if there is a reasonable belief that they are armed and dangerous.”

WHAT A POLICEMAN CAN NOT MAKE YOU DO

  • Police are not allowed to frisk for anything except weapons. If, during a weapons pat, an officer discovers something ‘suspicious’ you don’t have to show it to them.Although the police have been given a lot of leeway to ‘check for weapons’, the Supreme Court has ruled (in the key decision Minnesota v Dickerson, 1993) that a weapons search may not be used as a pretext for a more general search. In Minnesota v Dickerson, a man was stopped coming out of a ‘notorious crack house’ and was patted down in a ‘Terry Stop’. The officer noticed something in the man’s pocket which he said ‘felt to be a lump of crack cocaine in cellophane’. He reached in the defendant’s pocket and found some crack-cocaine. The Supreme Court ruled that in order to determine whether the item was crack or not required a further, unwarranted search was necessary which was not acceptable by 4th Amendment standards.
  • Police are not allowed to search everyone (see Ybarra v. Illinois, 444 U.S. 85 (1979).In Ybarra v. Illinois, a man was patted down in a bar where the police were arresting a bar owner for selling heroin. An officer identified “a cigarette pack with objects in it” in the man’s pocket during the pat down and decided to search Ybarra. The High Court ruled that the officer overstepped his authority by searching everyone in the bar, even though they had a warrant to arrest the bartender and search the bar for evidence of drug sales.A common situation where police attempt to search many individuals without probable cause is a raided party. Sometimes police tell people to ‘empty your pockets’ or they pat everyone down as they are leaving or they target a few people based on appearance for a full blown search. Most raids on parties are done without a judge-issued warrant and are based on noise complaints, city ordainances about event sizes, etc. In these cases, most searches will be citizens ‘voluntarily’ complying with requests except in the case of violence, extreme intoxication, or obvious criminal activity. Be polite and considerate of the difficult job the LEO’s have, but do not consent to any warrantless search and do not offer information to the police regarding any criminal activity they suspect you of.

HOW TO SAY NO

So, when a policeman says “Empty your pockets for me?” or “Why don’t you step over here for a moment?” What does a reasonable, law abiding citizen say if s/he doesn’t want to? Unfortunately there may be no simple answer to this. Because of the nature of most police-citizen interactions, tensions can be high and LEO’s may interpret any dissent as hostility or ‘suspicious behaviour’.

  1. Stay Calm. Speak calmly and slowly and don’t be surprised if the officer becomes irritated, angry, or belligerent. Move slowly.
  2. Ask Questions. One way to Say No is to ask questions in return: “Is that a request or an order?” “Am I under arrest?” “Am I free to go?” “Why do you want me to *whatever*?” “Am I a suspect in a crime?”
  3. Say No. Another way to Say No is to very clearly say no: “No, I would like to leave.” “No, I do not consent to any warrantless searches.” “You do not have my permission to search me / my car / my belongings.”
  4. Defuse Tensions. Do everything you can to defuse the tensions and seem peaceful. If an LEO thinks you might be dangerous, the courts have ruled that they have a greater authority to force you to comply.
  5. Do not Resist. Do not Argue with a Cop. Do not Touch a cop. Don’t Run. Don’t complain or threaten an officer legally.
  6. Comply when Required. Knowing when you are required to comply can be difficult (see What You Must Do and What You Don’t Have to Do ) The moment an LEO pulls a gun, do what they say. If they make you do something through force, your Constitutional Rights are not as important as staying healthy and alive. You can challenge the arrest in court if your rights are violated.
  7. Give the Cop a Break. Remember that police have a very difficult job to do and most cops are doing their best to try to keep their communities safe. When it comes to dealing with unusual or strange individuals or confronting drug issues, officers (and many people in the world) make some bad snap judgements. But most cops think of themselves as the Good Guys, so try to let em know you’re on their side.
  8. Ask for a Lawyer. As soon as its clear you will be arrested, ask for a lawyer and then keep quiet. Police will try to get you to talk. Don’t.

CAN SAYING NO GET ME IN MORE TROUBLE?

The short answer to this is, of course, yes and no. A lot is dependent on your rapport with the individual officer(s). Saying No to a police officer should be done gently to avoid enraging them so you don’t get beaten up. Saying No to a warrantless search may cause a police officer to harass you further to try to get you to comply. Saying No, however, is always the best idea when it gets to the point of arrest and prosecution. It is never in your interest to cooperate with the police in helping them collect evidence against you. If you do say No and a policeman searches anyway, evidence can sometimes be suppressed (thrown out). If you agree to a search, you have no grounds to dispute the evidence.

It is common to have an officer ‘ask’ forcefully first and if the suspect gives any indication of saying No, they threaten to arrest them and take them to the station. They say things like “if you don’t open your trunk/pocket/whatever for me, I can arrest you and we can open it up down at the station”. Often officers will imply that if the suspect cooperates, the cop will go easier on them. While it is true that a police officer controls whether you are arrested or not, very few police officers will overlook anything illegal they find in a search (including very small amounts of cannabis).

 

Who’s the Naysayer now?

My … how the tide has turned.

From day one, if you even considered questioning Carbon Motors you were labeled a “Naysayer” by Mayor Leonard Urban. He would frequently use the word and publicly chastise the “negative people” when anyone asked questions about the company.

While Carbon Motors continues to move forward with the announcement of it’s new TX7 multi-mission capable vehicle, Mayor Leonard Urban and other local politicians continue to spiral downward with all their negative comments in Thursday’s News-Examiner – and take the community down with them.

Naysaying Leaders

The Mayor along with all the other local politicians and police chiefs that lined up to get their pictures taken with Carbon executives and the prototype “Carbon E7″ in the earlier Carbon Motors days seem to have turned on the company.

In the News-Examiner Councilman Fran Chomel said, “We’ve waited long enough and they had the opportunity to make an offer on the building. I don’t think it’s fair to come back and criticize the city for something that we feel is in the best interest of our citizens.”

Fayette County Council president Ron Cox said he did not pay much attention to this weeks Carbon announcement. “I was never for putting county money into this until they proved they were doing something.  After the U.S. Department of Energy denied Carbon Motors’ loan application in March, the County Council rarely discussed the company,” he said.

“After time and we weren’t kept up to date, I kind of just dropped it,” he said. “I know they have the new vehicle, but if it’s like the other one, I’m not sure they’ll get it off the ground.” 

Fellow County Council member Jim Wulff said when the vehicles roll off the production line, he will believe it. “We’ve waited four years and haven’t seen it,” he said.

As an apparent expert in multi-mission capable vehicles, Police Chief David Counceller’s  said “In small town USA, I don’t see any use for it.”            (Carbon official’s will surely appreciate this glowing endorsement)

Message for Carbon Motors

Screw them. These politicians will be gone soon and Leonard Urban will be lounging at his ritzy cabin in Michigan.

Many of their comments, while being a slap in the face to the Carbon Motors Company and the people of Connersville, are NOT the opinion of the majority of the community. Don’t give up on Connersville, we still have the Carbon Motors dream.

Below is a recent Fox59 story …

Carbon Motors moving forward on plans to build new truck

After four years and a failed federal loan, a company that promised to make police cars and employ hundreds of Hoosiers says it is once again moving forward, but it might not happen where everyone thought.

Carbon Motors, which promised to employ more than 1,500 people in Connersville in 2009, has yet to fulfill that promise due to a federal loan which was delayed for several years and then rejected in early 2012.

Now, a Carbon Motors spokesperson says the company is ready to begin filling orders for a  new multi-purpose law enforcement truck in 2013.

“It’s a very exciting day for us,” said Stacy Stephens, chief brand officer for Carbon Motors. “It’s something we’ve been waiting for, for quite some time, to be able to get some vehicles in the hands of customers.”

But despite promising jobs to Connersville in the past, Stephens said the company hasn’t made a final decision about where to manufacture the truck.

“At the moment the intent is (to build it in Connersville),” Stephens said. “Unfortunately, we’ve lost the right to purchase the building.”

After the federal loan fell through earlier this year, the city of Connersville, which purchased the old Visteon plant to lure Carbon Motors to town, recently approved the selling of the building to a third party.

Mayor Leonard Urban said the city had an obligation to move forward in hopes of creating jobs. The area leads the state in unemployment.

“It’s always been our hope that we could put something in (the old Visteon plant),” Urban said. “When Carbon (Motors) was kind of uncertain, we had to pursue something else.”

“With them attempting to sell the building we don’t know what our long-term status is at that particular location,” Stephens said.

The sale of the old Visteon plant is not official. The third party buyer is now asking city officials to give them until March in order to close, but Mayor Urban said that he doesn’t expect the plan to change because of the announcement by Carbon Motors.

“We still would hope that if (Carbon Motors) are going to build something at all they would build it here,” Urban said.

The mayor said the new buyer intends to lease the space Carbon Motors needs to build the truck, but that’s not exactly what the company wants.

“I’m sure there are other places we can go where we wouldn’t have to contend with having a landlord,” Stephens said. “Obviously, we came here to build a company and we can’t have our hands tied with the regards to the facility.”

And if the company would decide to go elsewhere?

“I would personally be hurt. We’ve put a lot into Carbon Motors, and I’ve taken a lot of heat,” Urban said. “Our people are hurting. Kids at school, 84 percent in some of our grade schools receive free lunch, and that tells the story. We need to have jobs here and that’s what we’re interested in with that building.”

Stephens said Carbon Motors has not looked at any other potential sites to manufacture the truck. He said federal regulations prevent company officials from talking about their new private funding or other financial details of their upcoming manufacturing plans.

 

Secret’s out! …The new Carbon TX7

And Justice For All

Introducing the Carbon TX7

The global law enforcement market is changing. More and more agencies are encountering increasingly dangerous threats at an alarming rate. The need for an affordable, robust and adaptable platform to command such incidents is at an all time high. The Carbon TX7 is the first multi mission capable vehicle designed to fill that exact need.

Flexible

The TX7’s breakthrough design will offer an integrated command module, surveillance capability, prisoner transport and personnel carrier capabilities in an innovative and flexible package not available in the marketplace today. The TX7 is, therefore, able to deploy more frequently and under a broader scope of scenarios providing agencies and communities with a higher return on their investment.

Disaster Preparedness

Bringing communications, supplies and aid to areas hit hard by a natural disaster or by a terrible accident has never been easier. The Carbon TX7 is fully capable of carrying up to ten officers to a scene off road or through debris. And with a large cargo capacity and additional towing capacity, medical supplies, food, water and other donated goods are easily delivered where needed quickly and efficiently.

Threat Detection

Similar to Carbon’s E7, the TX7 will utilize weapons-of-mass-destruction sensors, infrared cameras, thermal imaging, gun shot detection and its proprietary On-board Rapid Command Architecture (ORCA™) to protect against a variety of threats.

Smart

Spending over half a million to two million dollars on a vehicle that sits in a garage for the majority of the year makes very little sense, especially during these economic times. Also, the shock of seeing a military-like vehicle driving through a residential neighborhood or across a college campus has communities looking for a better solution. The TX7 was designed with the commanding presence sought after by law enforcement while still providing community friendly appearance desired by citizens and governing bodies.

 

Urban clueless on Carbon Motors announcement

According to Carbon Motors officials, “under the cloak of darkness” the company is set to make a major announcement on Monday – an announcement the local mayor says he knows nothing about.

Excitement about the new Carbon TX7

Officials are building anticipation for a new vehicle in their product line – the Carbon TX7. There has been MUCH speculation about Carbon’s plans with the new vehicle and the company in general. Some even wonder if there could be a new deal or partnership with Indianapolis to build new electric or plug-in hybrid city vehicles. Recently Indianapolis Mayor Greg Ballard announced an ambitious green initiative to wean the city’s sprawling vehicle fleet off gasoline.      Read that IndyStar story HERE

Lii butts head’s with Urban

During a public meeting last June with City Council and Mayor Leonard Urban,  Carbon Motors CEO, William Santana Lii aggressively told Urban …

“I have formally and informally offered my services to help bring other companies to Connersville,” he said. “I have offered three times and have not been taken up on that. I get up every morning trying to put the people of Connersville back to work. Are you doing the same?”

Urban being in a fog on the company’s new announcement seems to indicate that he has continued to ignore Lii’s offers. Since that June meeting, Urban’s sole effort seem to be cutting losses and finding a buyer for the former Visteon building – not furthering a relationship with Carbon Motors.

During the meeting Lee also said … “The next thing is, we’re never going to quit” … something that Towncow and all (or at least, most) Connersville residents gratefully appreciate.

Below, the Carbon Motors website hypes the new upcoming announcement by saying that they are going to “beat Santa to the punch line.”

Operation TX7: Carbon Motors

Posted on Dec 15, 2012 by Admin

Director: What’s this stuff going on about Carbon Motors?

Special Agent: Not sure. Rumor mill is churning out all sorts of stuff but can’t pin anyone down.

Director: Something is going down on the 17th of December. What do you know?

Special Agent: This is like finding out about Sasquatch – people have claimed sightings of some new vehicle but I haven’t seen it. And not much on their website.

Director: I got a tip from Washington DC that there is something now called a “Carbon TX7” but that is all I could find out.

Special Agent: So, not the E7? What the heck is a TX7?

Director: Don’t know but someone said it was the size of Texas.

Special Agent: Well, let’s see. Maybe they will beat Santa to the punch line.

 

Connersville students help distribute food to children, families in need

IndyStar Story … Hunger and poverty are common among Connersville Senior High School’s 1,200 students — most of whom qualify for free and reduced lunch. But an initiative by Gleaners Food Bank of Indiana hopes to alleviate that.

The high school in Fayette County, a high-poverty area about 70 miles east of Indianapolis …….. Read more

 

Connersville Ingenuity on Ebay

A search though the world of Ebay can show many clever and unique items including this one from right here in Connersville Indiana.

Drum Barrel Outdoor Child Kiddie Ride On Yard Train Car

Price: $250.00

Description:  This listing is for one (1) train car, with hitch pin.  Our Kiddie Yard Train Car is made from a plastic drum barrel and secured to a metal wheel base.  Can be pulled by any small tractor, riding lawn mower, golf cart, etc.  You can add additional train cars quickly and easily.  Quantity discounts are available for 5 or more.  Price for 5 or more is $225.00 each. 

Great for grandparents, birthday parties, special events or just everyday fun around the yard.  Kids love it!!!

Specifications: 

Drum barrel – 55 gallon, 24″ x 35″ x 36″ 

Wheel base frame – 16 ga 1″ square tubing, 13-1/2″ x 37″, 9″ front tongue, and 7″ rear tongue, powder coated

Wheels – 13″ x 4″ phneumatic, with 5/8″ solid steel axle

Hitch – clevis style and uses a 1/2″ pin 

Seat – child seat is bolted to drum and has a nylon strap seatbelt with plastic clip / buckle

Recommended weight capacity – 100 lbs       

Note:  Product may vary slightly from picture, some assesmbly required  

                                                                                                                                                         

Thank you for looking at our product.  Have a great day!

 

C&P Engineering & Manufacturing: 1-800-783-4283, Office Hours: Monday thru Friday, 8:00am – 4:00 pm est, candpeng@aol.com, www.c-peng.com,

 

Joke: What Starts with F and ends with K

A first-grade teacher, Ms Brooks, was having trouble with one of her students.  The teacher asked, “Harry, what’s your problem?”

Harry answered, “I’m too smart for the 1st grade. My sister is in the 3rd grade and I’m smarter than she is!  I think I should be in the 3rd grade too!”

Ms. Brooks had enough.  She took Harry to the principal’s office.

While Harry waited in the outer office, the teacher explained to the principal what the situation was. The principal told Ms. Brooks he would give the boy a test.  If he failed to answer any of his questions he was to go back to the 1st grade and behave.  She agreed.

Harry was brought in and the conditions were explained to him and he agreed to take the test.

Principal: “What is 3 x 3?”

Harry: “9.”

Principal: “What is 6 x 6?”

Harry: “36.”

And so it went with every question the principal thought a 3rd grader should know.

The principal looks at Ms. Brooks and tells her, “I think Harry can go to the 3rdgrade.”

Ms. Brooks says to the principal, “Let me ask him some questions.”

The principal and Harry both agreed.

Ms. Brooks asks, “What does a cow have four of that I have only two of?”

Harry, after a moment: “Legs.”

Ms Brooks: “What is in your pants that you have but I do not have?”

The principal wondered why would she ask such a question!

Harry replied: “Pockets.”

Ms. Brooks: “What does a dog do that a man steps into?”

Harry: “Pants.”

The principal sat forward with his mouth hanging open.

Ms. Brooks: “What goes in hard and pink then comes out soft and sticky?”

The principal’s eyes opened really wide and before he could stop the answer, Harry replied, “Bubble gum.”

Ms. Brooks: “What does a man do standing up, a woman does sitting down and a dog does on three legs?”

Harry: “Shake hands.”

The principal was trembling.

Ms. Brooks: “What word starts with an ‘F’ and ends in ‘K’ that means a lot of heat and excitement?”

Harry: “Firetruck.”

The principal breathed a sigh of relief and told the
teacher,
 ”Put Harry in the fifth-grade, I got the last six questions wrong… “