You got me started, didn't you?
Just to shed a different light ... you wouldn't shoot at a shape in the dark
because firearms training says to know your target. You wouldn't want to
blow away a child/friend/spouse of yours who was sneaking your xmas present
up the stairs or involved in some scam to celebrate a birthday/do a
stag/pull a prank. You would always have to give away the element of
surprize to make sure. Turning the lights on could be good. You would want
to have a thought out plan in advance.
Take our Prime Minister as an example. When a person with a knife invaded
his home, he allowed his wife to think and lock the bedroom door ( the
intruder then apparently sat down and waited ) and he hid behind his wife
and wielded some ( unregistered to the best of my knowledge ) Inuit
soapstone(?) carving.
Our latest legislation allows police to get a search warrant for your home
if you refuse to voluntarily allow them to search it. They can confiscate
your computer if there is firearm references on it. Anbody have a computer
that doesn't have the word 'bullet' on it. People in this country think the
whole deal is 'registration', but they should find out what they have asked
for.
Robert D.
-----Original Message-----
From Martin Johnson <MJohnson at cfworks.com>
To: 'Daniel1312@aol.com' <Daniel1312@aol.com>; transerv@sprynet.com
<transerv@sprynet.com>; spridgets@autox.team.net <spridgets@autox.team.net>
Date: July 12, 2000 4:32 PM
Subject: RE: GUN CONTROL*NO LBC CONTENT* DELETE NOW IF NOT INTERESTED
>In American law school, it is taught that protection of personal
>property alone is not worth a human life, even if the human is a
>worthless one. As much as you would like to, you can't take a baseball
>bat to someone caught in the act of keying your MG. If you were
>successful in putting the jerk out of our misery, you would probably be
>facing manslaughter charges, and you might use a defense to try to show
>a lack of intent to kill. Good luck. This comes from English common
>law. Over time however, each state of the American union has legislated
>it's own interpretation of what constitutes a "burglary" or similar
>crime that rises to the level justifying use of deadly force to defend
>against intruders. Generally, this is a highly factual inquiry
>requiring proof of intent on the part of the alleged intruder, and the
>defender using deadly force. Did the intruder have a deadly weapon?
>Did the defender know the intruder was armed with a deadly weapon? How
>would the defender do that if it was dark, or didn't have his glasses
>on? Further, deadly booby traps like spring guns in uninhabited
>vacation homes for instance, can subject their owners to attemped
>manslaughter or if successful, manslaughter charges. I guess it's
>moral, but somehow, it doesn't seem fair. I fancy myself as a decent
>person. You won't EVER find me getting into someone else's stuff. I
>keep a short T-ball bat under my side of the bed so I can swing it in
>the hallway, and one like it in the trunk of my car along with a ball
>and glove, and I might have an unregistered ### in a shoebox in the top
>shelf in my closet for wee beasties and things that go bump in the
>night. I'd rather be alive to defend myself before judge and jury, than
>be dead and know I followed the law.
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Daniel1312@aol.com [mailto:Daniel1312@aol.com]
>Sent: Wednesday, July 12, 2000 11:52 AM
>To: transerv@sprynet.com; spridgets@autox.team.net
>Subject: Re: GUN CONTROL*NO LBC CONTENT* DELETE NOW IF NOT INTERESTED
>
>
>The Norfolk thing really did happen and it was a travesty of justice.
>The
>farmer did not intend to kill the burglers, he was just sick of being
>burgled. He used a shotgun rather than a rifle.
>
>Lots of arguments either way, no easy answers but I would hang and flog.
>
>Daniel1312
>
>In a message dated 12/07/00 16:20:49 GMT Daylight Time,
>transerv@sprynet.com
>writes:
>
><< Robert Houston >>
>
|