 | | Re: National vote on handguns?
|
|
(...) (clipping lengthy legal text - see previous message if you need to) No, you needn't say more: it's reassuring that I got it right. You can't shoot someone for stealing a crust of bread. There has to be the reasonable belief that the person is (...) (23 years ago, 23-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: National vote on handguns?
|
|
(...) Awww, but it does say that you "believe" they are going to cause you harm. If someone breaks into my house, I'm going to "believe" that they could be there to cause harm to my family or myself. I will not first ask them their intentions, when (...) (23 years ago, 23-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: National vote on handguns?
|
|
(...) *Reasonable* belief is what the text refers to. I can't make a better case for there needing to be a required course and test on firearm safety and law than the various responses I'm getting. :-) Bruce (23 years ago, 23-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: National vote on handguns?
|
|
(...) He would then be cutting that crust off of the loaf of bread on the kitchen counter - he's armed with a knife. *BLAM* (...) I beleived that the intruder was about to sexually assault my wife (or even me, who knows about people these days). (...) (23 years ago, 23-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: National vote on handguns?
|
|
(...) Well Bruce, I'll let you in on the fact that I worked for the Fulton County Sheriff's department for 4 years, and was well trained on how to use my firearm. Also I was very aware of what intruders can do when they break into a person's home, (...) (23 years ago, 23-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Go ahead, make my day!
|
|
(...) Oops, he simply took the whole loaf. No knife present. They cart you of to jail. Meet Bubba. (...) Oh dang, that was a woman you shot - your alibi doesn't hold up. They cart you off to jail. Bubba thinks you are cute. (...) That fireman came (...) (23 years ago, 23-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Go ahead, make my day!
|
|
(...) Here's a nice story for you, I'm glad this guy didn't waist time to ask if the intruder was looking for a slice of bread. Gregory Jenkins of Antioch, Tennessee, was awakened by the sound of breaking glass early Monday morning. He got out of (...) (23 years ago, 23-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: National vote on handguns?
|
|
(...) Yes, and you get to shoot those kind of people. I wasn't arguing that. Just blasting away is on dangerous legal grounds is what I was talking about. Odds are you can get away with it. Odds are you were right. But there are enough dead innocent (...) (23 years ago, 23-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: National vote on handguns?
|
|
(...) Well how about this, you go and put a sign in your front yard that say "gun free home", so that way the criminal types will know that they are safe to steal bread from your house, and will stay away from my home and family. jt (23 years ago, 23-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: National vote on handguns?
|
|
(...) So then what were you arguing? You've just confused me. Where is the distinction? (...) (23 years ago, 23-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Go ahead, make my day!
|
|
(...) Thank heavens it wasn't you chasing Eddrick Jenkins. (...) Right. He was justified as it turned out. But if it had been a fireman he'd be hauled away. The point you are not getting is that this is about "I'm going to fire first and ask (...) (23 years ago, 23-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: National vote on handguns?
|
|
(...) Just re-read the previous post. And the light came on, if a little late. Yes, whacking an intruder may put me in the legal spotlight. Yes, I may have broken other laws in the process (1). I'm willing to take that risk if it means that my (...) (23 years ago, 23-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: National vote on handguns?
|
|
(...) Sigh. You haven't followed the conversation have you? I have a 12 gauge and a rifle. I used to have an assortment of handguns. I've been trained by a police officer and a marine sniper. I have a sword, to boot (and yes, trained in that, too, (...) (23 years ago, 23-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: National vote on handguns?
|
|
(...) Well, IANAL but the text does treat someone in your domicile as a special case. Still, the class I took in Florida did go into this, and you don't get to just brandish your gun or pop off whenever you feel like, there has to be some (as Bruce (...) (23 years ago, 23-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Go ahead, make my day!
|
|
Bruce: No offense, but this is a rather small point you are making. Okay, okay -- reasonableness in the use of firearm is prerequisite. Fine. I don't actually think anyone is arguing with that as a foundation before deadly force is used. I have (...) (23 years ago, 23-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: National vote on handguns?
|
|
(...) Sorry, Bruce, but if someone breaks into my dwelling, I'm not going to Debate with him as to his intent. BREAKING IN shows the intent, as far as I'm concerned. They'd better be ready to accept the consequences for their action. -- Tom Stangl (...) (23 years ago, 24-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Go ahead, make my day!
|
|
(...) Pull bread knife out of drawer, put in dead criminal's hand, let drop to floor. (...) You sexist PIG. Woman can sexually assault people too. (...) Only in Kalifornia would you meet Bubba. In most sane states, you wouldn't. (...) You've got (...) (23 years ago, 24-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: National vote on handguns?
|
|
See, I WAS right - Kalifornia blinders. Bruce, I hate to break this to you, but lots of other states think Kalifornia is a looney bin and so are many of its' laws ;-) (...) -- Tom Stangl ***(URL) Visual FAQ home ***(URL) Bay Area DSMs (23 years ago, 24-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Go ahead, make my day!
|
|
(...) Like putting a bread knife in the dead man's hand, for instance? ;^) Dave! (23 years ago, 24-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Go ahead, make my day!
|
|
(...) Nope, I'd accept that - I mean like calling someone and asking them to come over, shooting them, then going out front and kicking in the door to make it look like a burglary. -- Tom Stangl ***(URL) Visual FAQ home ***(URL) Bay Area DSMs (23 years ago, 24-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Go ahead, make my day!
|
|
(...) By the way--no lawyer worth his shinola would allow you to remain on that jury, of course. (...) So you are in fact advocating the falsification of a crime scene? I trust, than, that if you get into a fistfight and accidentally kill your (...) (23 years ago, 24-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Go ahead, make my day!
|
|
(...) If you were foolish enough to actually *say* that during jury selection. I think I have the whole "sheep" thing down (or so I think), along with the "maneuver one's self to be the foreman once deliberations start" which is also very useful, (...) (23 years ago, 24-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Go ahead, make my day!
|
|
(...) That's funny larry. I do the same thing. Most of my coworkers have always wanted schemes to get out of jury duty...but I always thought that was easy and irresponsible. I've always answered everything neutrally so that I would stay. (...) How (...) (23 years ago, 24-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Go ahead, make my day!
|
|
(...) 1. Considering that we are talking about felonies, it's rather a large point. And yes, the constant statement is "I'm going to come out blazing no matter what the circumstances are, and I'll fake evidence and even execute people to cover my (...) (23 years ago, 24-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Go ahead, make my day!
|
|
(...) That's not my problem ;-) (...) There'd be no need - if I killed someone in a fistfight, it would be equal force as defense. And if I killed them, they couldn't argue about who started it. Not that I'd get involved in a fistfight, I've pretty (...) (23 years ago, 24-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Go ahead, make my day!
|
|
(...) Well I hear it usually is up to the jury to decide who the foreman is using whatever mechanism they decide on, I understand being foreman is perceived as being a bit more work, so I have heard that people will happily go along with it if one (...) (23 years ago, 24-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Go ahead, make my day!
|
|
(...) Doesn't this demand that each member of the jury be conversant with the (possibly very obscure) laws? How can one's "peers" be expected at any time, for instance, to be trusted to interpret the particulars of laws they might never previously (...) (23 years ago, 24-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Go ahead, make my day!
|
|
(...) Actually, that last bit there riles me up some. Mostly because this sort of started (at least on my end of it) because I did not sufficiently qualify the scenarios I made up. I really never stated anything to the effect that I would come out (...) (23 years ago, 24-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Go ahead, make my day!
|
|
(...) Nope. The Founder Fathers thought they could trust the average venireman to judge both facts and law, no complicated understanding was supposed to be needed -- and if it were, perhaps it was not a very good law such that people could (...) (23 years ago, 24-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Go ahead, make my day!
|
|
(...) <snip> Richard I totally agree with you here but would just like to point out that Bruce MIGHT be responding to Tom S. who I think is shading a bit more towards planting evidence than you. But you're doing great so don't let me stop you! :-) (...) (23 years ago, 24-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Go ahead, make my day!
|
|
(...) (23 years ago, 24-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Go ahead, make my day!
|
|
(...) It doesn't require apriori knowledge, just willingness to examine the law, and decide if it's a just law or not. (...) Defacto you are correct, in most cases this is what happens. Dejure you are wrong, common law (and case law if you can find (...) (23 years ago, 24-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Go ahead, make my day!
|
|
(...) Richard's statement that I was responding to refered to "No one here...", i.e. he was refering to the respondents in the collective. I replied in the collective, which Richard seems to have missed. I'm not going to reply to Richard's message (...) (23 years ago, 25-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Go ahead, make my day!
|
|
(...) With this in mind, and in order to eliminate further confusion,I've compiled the following small (and by no means complete) list. On one or more occasions Bruce has claimed: 1) that he can freeze or boil water in his bare hands 2) that he can (...) (23 years ago, 25-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Go ahead, make my day!
|
|
(...) Oops, could well be the case...! And once we get to the "Dots" phase these discussions get a lot ickier! (...) This sounds a lot like you would have nothing substantive to state...but sure, whatever you can dish out I can take. Can you handle (...) (23 years ago, 25-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Go ahead, make my day!
|
|
(...) But not above 6000 feet! (...) You poke your pinky into the hole - don't try and actually grab it. (...) They are both fruits - now, apples and coproliths... (...) Just spinning my Miata in tight circles, honest officer! (...) I was (...) (23 years ago, 25-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Go ahead, make my day!
|
|
"Dave Schuler" <orrex@excite.com> wrote in message news:GH1MnF.2nz@lugnet.com... (...) that, or (...) confusion,I've (...) <snip> (...) I have to agree with him on that one. Clowns and mimes are the lowest form of life and deserve closer scrutiny. (...) (23 years ago, 25-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Go ahead, make my day!
|
|
(...) You are the showing yourself to be the King Fool then. You try to tell everyone else that DOESN'T live in California how much trouble they'll get into, forgetting that the World Does Not Revolve Around California, and laws in other states (...) (23 years ago, 25-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Go ahead, make my day!
|
|
(...) Actually, the only law that was quoted here on the board was from Colorado. I've heard similiar claims from people in other states - I can't think of one that didn't mention the stuff about reasonable belief that you were in some sort of (...) (23 years ago, 25-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | (canceled)
|
|
|
| |
| | Re: Go ahead, make my day!
|
|
(...) I think you have WAY too narrow a view of what "reasonable belief" is. Maybe that's where you may think I'm foolish, but I think you're beyond foolish in what you think it will/will not cover (in states outside of your precious California, (...) (23 years ago, 26-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Go ahead, make my day!
|
|
(...) <awkward snip: the following is attributed to Bruce S. by Dave! [1]> (...) I'll say! I mean, think of John Wayne Gacy, and that clown from Stephen King's novel "It". Thank goodness the last Bozo (Chicago area) is finally going to clown (...) (23 years ago, 26-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Go ahead, make my day!
|
|
(...) And very nicely done. It's always nice to find the proper spot for Dave! (1) 2 - other people's footnotes ++Lar (reduce, reuse (2), recycle.. but do NOT "redirect" to local.portugal please) (23 years ago, 26-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Go ahead, make my day!
|
|
(...) Well, since you keep bringing Texas up, I thought I would give you a little reading material.... SUBCHAPTER C. PROTECTION OF PERSONS § 9.31. Self-Defense (a) Except as provided in Subsection (b), a person is justified in using force against (...) (23 years ago, 26-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Go ahead, make my day!
|
|
(...) It's interesting reading. The defense of property part is what I suspected it might be - even though that is couched in "reasonable belief" terms and "can't get the property back" terms, tackling a guy running off with your stereo is fraught (...) (23 years ago, 26-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Go ahead, make my day!
|
|
(...) Texas IS the only soverign nation that petitioned to join (and there are those that claim that it therefore has the right to secede again :-) ) ++Lar (23 years ago, 26-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
