quote:

ORIGINAL: Nnanji

In an attempt, Bama, to get this thread back on track. I once had a discussion with a legal type who stipulated that if someone breaks into your house and you beat him to death with your gun, it is evidence that you were in such fear of your life you'd most probably be found justified. Not shooting the person and beating him shows lack of thought due to fear.

quote:

ORIGINAL: thompsonx


ORIGINAL: Nnanji

I once had a discussion with a legal type who stipulated that if someone breaks into your house and you beat him to death with your gun, it is evidence that you were in such fear of your life you'd most probably be found justified. Not shooting the person and beating him shows lack of thought due to fear.


I once had a discussion with a 6 year old who had a better grasp on reality than you.

quote:

ORIGINAL: bounty44

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nnanji

In an attempt, Bama, to get this thread back on track. I once had a discussion with a legal type who stipulated that if someone breaks into your house and you beat him to death with your gun, it is evidence that you were in such fear of your life you'd most probably be found justified. Not shooting the person and beating him shows lack of thought due to fear.

I posted this awhile back---its relevant to part of the conversation and worth repeating. its from john locke's two treatise of government:

"and that all Men may be restrained from invading others Rights, and from doing hurt to one another, and the Law of Nature be observed, which willeth the Peace and Preservation of all Mankind the Execution of the Law of Nature in in that State, put into every Mans hands, whereby every one has a right to punish the transgressors of that Law to such a Degree, as may hinder its violation"

2nd treatise of government, chapter 2, section 7, 1-6.

that combined with this more particular thought:

"...it being reasonable to and just I should have a Right to destroy that which threatens me with Destruction. for, by the Fundamental Law of Nature, Man being to be preserved , as much as possible, when all cannot be preserved, the safety of the Innocent is to be preferred: And one may destroy a Man who makes War upon him, or has discovered an Enmity to his being, for the same Reason, that he may kill a Wolf or a Lyon; because, such Men are not under the ties of the Common Law of Reason, and so may be treated as Beasts of Prey, those dangerous and noxious Creatures, that will be sure to destroy him, whenever he falls into their Power.

"and hence it is, that he who attempts to get another Man into his Absolute Power, does thereby put himself into a State of War with him; it being to be understood as a Declaration of a Design upon his Life. for I have reason to concluded, that he who would get me into his Power without my consent, would use me as he pleased, when he had got me there, and destroy me too when he had a fancy to it...

"this makes it Lawful for a Man to kill a Thief, who has not in in the least hurt him, nor declared any design upon his Life, any farther then by the use of Force, so to get him in his Power, as to take away his Money, or what he pleases from him: because using force, where he has no Right, to get me into his Power, let his pretence be what it will, I have no reason to suppose that he, who would take away my Liberty, would not when he had me in his Power, take away every thing else. and therefore it is Lawful for me to treat him, as one who has put himself into a State of War with me, i.e. kill him if I can; for to that hazard does he justly expose himself, whoever introduces a State of War, and is aggressor in it"

chapter 3, section 16, 8-18; section 17, 1-9; section 18, 1-12.

quote:

ORIGINAL: thompsonx

ORIGINAL: ThatDizzyChick

Dear God, is this dick wagging still going on? Grow the fuck up.


You seem to spend an inordinant amount of time looking at my cock..."me thinks the lady doth protest too much".

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nnanji

In an attempt, Bama, to get this thread back on track. I once had a discussion with a legal type who stipulated that if someone breaks into your house and you beat him to death with your gun, it is evidence that you were in such fear of your life you'd most probably be found justified. Not shooting the person and beating him shows lack of thought due to fear.

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nnanji

In an attempt, Bama, to get this thread back on track. I once had a discussion with a legal type who stipulated that if someone breaks into your house and you beat him to death with your gun, it is evidence that you were in such fear of your life you'd most probably be found justified. Not shooting the person and beating him shows lack of thought due to fear.

Interesting thought. Did his opinion also include the possiblility that with a solid object like a gun the beating will go through the helpless stage fast enough that you may have inflicted fatal damage by the time you realize they are helpless?

quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail

Almost any lawyer gets it. The thing is, even if you got stand your ground, castle doctrine, 85 stab wounds to your heart and you cakked some guy, dont talk to cops, they aint looking to be your friend, get a voicebox first, let him do the briefcasing.