Subject:
|
Re: Go ahead, make my day!
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Thu, 26 Jul 2001 00:03:13 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1081 times
|
| |
|
|
Bruce Schlickbernd wrote:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Tom Stangl writes:
> > Bruce Schlickbernd wrote:
> >
> > > For that matter, I see little point in responding to Tom, who comes up with
> > > the Klassic Klueless Suicide Logic Bomb of dismissing everything I have to
> > > say because I am from K(C)alifornia - which is pretty clueless in and of
> > > itself, but with the added note that *he* is from California. All I can do
> > > is stand back and marvel that someone is that determined to make a fool of
> > > himself.
> >
> > 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 aren't necessarily
> > going to be the same as ours. Fool you are, indeed. Quote all the "experts" you want,
> > if they're basing their "facts" on California law, you are making a total fool of
> > yourself.
>
> 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 physical danger to justify deadly force. I mentioned
> California because that is the one I am most familiar with, but that doesn't
> mean that I based what I said solely on that experience. (and yes, I
> understand that "reasonable belief" offers a wide lattitude of protection to
> the homeowner and am not arguing against it).
>
> I don't know why you enjoy hanging yourself publically, but here's some more
> rope.
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, anyways). Must be those
Kalifornia Blinders again.
Use the rope yourself, you need it far more than I do.
> > > My favorite was the
> > > law quote that actually backed me up almost word for word.
> >
> > You can't read very well, can you? I think you need to read that CO law again.
>
> Tell me where I was wrong. I read it very thoroughly.
"Reasonable belief" stretches a lot farther than you think. And it's not "reasonable belief
after all the facts have been weighed, the police have done their investigation, and you
have/haven't been charged", it's "reasonable belief in that instant". Your Uncle Harry
example? "Reasonable belief".
> > > All I said from the beginning is simply that you do not have carte blanche to shoot
> > > intruders.
> >
> > Bull. You then railed at people about all sorts of scenarios. Scenarios that the CO
> > law would cover, regardless of your precious California law expert.
>
> No, you guys railed at me over scenarios that you incorrectly presumed my
> opinion on.
-----
> I beleived that the intruder was about to sexually assault my wife (or even
> me, who knows about people these days). *BLAM*
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.
-----
Here's your rope, sir.
> Note above, for example, how you presumed the entirety of my
> experience was with California alone.
Well, then, you failed in your background. All we've seen is:
> My grandfather, with 20 years on the LAPD and about 20 more as a Special
> Investigator for the State of California was my source, by the way.
Have some more rope.
> > > Think otherwise? Go check your state law.
> >
> > Now THAT is what you should have said in the first place. And I suggest you check out
> > all 50 state laws - some are even more lenient than the CO law.
>
> Then quote me them instead of just shooting your mouth off. I'm sure some
> are more lenient then others (I noted all bets were off on Texas, for
> example - you are presuming my opinion again when I have already stated
> otherwise).
If you presume some are more lenient than others, why have you wasted EVERYONE'S time with
this BS? Preaching to others about their state laws without knowing what they truly are?
You've just proved my point about Kalifornia Blinders, thank you. Have a chair and a beam
to go with that rope.
YOU quote the laws of other states to back your assertions, or quit wasting everyone's time
preaching your "feeling" of them based on California law (and if you really do have other
bases, state them).
> > > Shrug. People want their macho fantasies.
> >
> > If that's your answer to people showing what a fool you are, fine, we're all macho.
> > Whatever.
>
> I'm not that concerned what you think, Tom. I really don't have any respect
> for the way you state your opinions regardless of whether I agree with them
> or not. Your Kalifornians are Klueless attack was your typical ad hominen
> level of personal assault.
When did I ever say Californians are clueless? You show no respect for me or any other
Californian with that (looks like an AH attack against an entire state to me). I've never
said Californians in general are (now you may be, but that is for others in this forum to
decide).
I have no problem using "Kalifornia" to state my disdain for some of the laws of this state,
however, and I feel only Californians have that right, having to live under them. And if
you're going to spout Kalifornia laws without looking up other states laws, I think you are
using Kalifornia Blinders.
Bruce, you take things more personally than anyone else in this group (short of possibly one
person). Might I suggest some anger management therapy?
--
Tom Stangl
***http://www.vfaq.com/
***DSM Visual FAQ home
***http://ba.dsm.org/
***SF Bay Area DSMs
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | 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)
|
110 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
