Subject:
|
Re: Just Teasing, I Have No Intention of Debating Any of This...
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Thu, 27 Mar 2003 18:12:51 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1134 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Mike Petrucelli writes:
> A women who; through going from school, to work, to home, was mugged at gun or
> knife point 4 times by 4 different people inside 2 months or so. Each time she
> reached in her purse and gave the person her wallet. The fourth guy hit her
> several times afterward then fled. She purchased a gun with all the neccessary
> registration and permits to carry and conceal it. Durring the next month two
> people attempted to rob her at knife point. She reached in her purse as if
> getting her wallet and shot both men through her purse. Neither was mortally
> wounded and police arrested them and recovered the knifes used. At the end of
> the month she was held up and gun point she reached in her purse and fired,
> killing the third man. The police recovered the attackers gun but also placed
> the women under arrest.
The most damning part of this tale isn't given; was the woman sentenced or
acquitted?
> Really I am not surprised I can not find a link to this. In all likelyhood a
> gag order was placed on the case. Not like it would be the first time that
> happened.
I appreciate your candor and your understanding of my skepticism. I still
have trouble believing that the case could have been gagged or swept under
some bureaucratic carpet; this kind of litigation would be an NRA
dream-come-true. I mean, what better argument could they offer about the
foolishness of gun control laws than the case you've presented? In one
stroke they could appear as crusaders for women's rights, gun-owner's
rights, and opponents of overzealous prosecution.
But even assuming it's all true as given, can you agree that it's an
anecdote and not really representative of supposedly silly anti-vigilante
laws? We have the case of a single woman who, her prosecutors would no
doubt argue, repeatedly put herself into a proven dangerous situation while
other routes or actions were possible. Might she have been persecuted for
what she thought was legitimate self defense? Possibly, but that doesn't
necessarily invalidate the laws under which she was tried.
Now that I think about it, even a hack public defender would have been
able to argue a plea of self defense or even diminished capacity, unless she
really was guilty of 2nd-degree murder and attempted 2nd-degree murder. For
that matter, she wouldn't have needed a public defender, because the
National Organization for Women would have sprung to her defense, and the
NRA would certainly have been on her side.
Without questioning your honesty or your recollection (neither of which
I've ever had reason to doubt here), I'd have to suggest that you are
recalling a tale either fabricated or sensationalized by whatever media put
it forth in the first place.
Dave!
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
Message is in Reply To:
164 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
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
