🚀 go-pugleaf

 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
>
>