Subject:
|
Re: Foundation of a republic (was Gun control)
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Mon, 8 Jan 2001 16:38:24 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
305 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Scott Arthur writes:
> > Really? I'll have to make a note of your address in that case. I'm
> > quibbling now, but even if you don't have the "absolute right" to take his
> > life, you do have the right to stop him by any means necessary given the
> > potential danger you and your family face because of his presence.
>
> In the UK, the "potential danger" is almost nil. If I killed him in anything
> other than strict self defense, I'd be off to jail.
That's quite amazing to me. Does he have to have a proverbial knife to
your throat/bat to your skull before you're able to act, or is there some
point at which his presence or actions are sufficient to infer forcible
self-defense as an appropriate response?
> > But [the injured burglar] certainly doesn't have a right to sue you (as he
> > is currently able to do in parts of my fine, litigious nation).
>
> If he does not have the right to sue in the US... why/how does it happen?
Suit for compensation and punitive damages is a legal recourse, but that
doesn't make it a right (but please please please let's not rehash that
debate again).
Dave!
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: Foundation of a republic (was Gun control)
|
| (...) In the UK, the "potential danger" is almost nil. If I killed him in anything other than strict self defense, I'd be of to jail. See: (URL) If that (...) If he does not have the right to sue in the US... why/how does it happen? Scott A (...) (23 years ago, 8-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
11 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
