 | | Re: A shot in the dark —Tim David
| | | | (...) Well in this case the homeowner was definatly in the wrong. There can be no doubt that he shot without any warning, (otherwise his daughter would have made herself known to him) and thus he can't claim self defence, because he wasn't being (...) (17 years ago, 8-Jun-07, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
| | | | | | | | | | Re: A shot in the dark —Douglas R. Clark
| | | | | (...) I will agree that the homeowner was wrong, but on different grounds. He did not properly identify his target before firing. In many states, you are allowed to presume that any un-invited intruder in your house is a deadly threat. Such laws are (...) (17 years ago, 11-Jun-07, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
| | | | | | | | | | | | Re: A shot in the dark —Tim David
| | | | | (...) I agree with most of what you have said, however I'm not certain your car analogy is valid. While cars can be a deadly weapon that is not what they are designd for. A well used gun is one that is never used whereas a well used car is used all (...) (17 years ago, 11-Jun-07, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
| | | | | | |
