🚀 go-pugleaf

STOP ALL THIS SPAMMING  NOW. THIS HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THESE
NEWSGROUPS.

On Sun, 17 Aug 1997 14:25:46 -0400, "Kieron Dodds" <kdo...@msn.com>
wrote:

> No, actually, the only appropriate use of deadly force would be if you were
>bodily threatened with serious injury (or worse, obviously), theft of
>property is *NOT* a defensible argument, no matter how many signs you post.
>As much as I disagree, that's the way it is, and, I believe, it *does* serve
>to maintain a balance.  For instance, say a women shoots her estranged
>husband who came by to pick up his things.  If she was not in any danger and
>only assumed that he was stealing her TV, she would have absolutely no
>defensible position.  Even *if* a restraining order had been issued against
>the husband.
>
>--
>Kieron Dodds
>kdo...@msn.com
>shad...@earthlink.net
>
>John Bibeau wrote in article <33F6D198...@ix.netcom.com>...
>
>>Big Bad Wolf wrote:
>>
>>> On 15 Aug 97 20:55:11 GMT, "Josh Straub"
>>> <took...@nconnect.net>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> >> it. I sencerly hope that one of you bastards ignore that
>>> TRESSPASSERS
>>> >> WILL BE SHOT ON SIGHT sign in my yard, and then try to claim
>>> "I wasn't
>>> >> stealing anything, so why did you shoot me?" Ooooo.......it
>>> >> just........just makes me tingle all over.
>>> >
>>> >Heh i would like to see a case like this.  No damn lawyers
>>> could argue with
>>> >this one.
>>>
>>> actually - in about half of the states in the US you are guilty
>>> of
>>> murder if you shoot someone EVEN IF they are stealing on your
>>> property. seems the lawyers were able to argue it after
>>> all..........
>>>
>>
>>Not necessarily.  If the person is in your home, you have every
>>right to defend yourself.  If the person is outside of your home,
>>you can get around that law if you can prove you were in bodily
>>harm from the perpetrator and reacted in self defense.
>>
>>WarGhoul
>>
>>
>
>