Liste des Groupes |
In article <v5huvd$2aohk$1@dont-email.me>,I'm not on anyone's "side" ...and, since I wasn't there, can't even rule out what I myself would or wouldn't have done. What I'm generally speaking up for is the last lost vestige of humanity that invariably gets trampled by macho revenge-movie fantasies of "cold justice".
moviePig <nobody@nowhere.com> wrote:
On 6/25/2024 11:13 PM, BTR1701 wrote:So they should have just let their property and livelihoods be destroyedIn article <v5fvh9$1uphg$4@dont-email.me>,>
moviePig <nobody@nowhere.com> wrote:
>On 6/25/2024 6:52 PM, BTR1701 wrote:>In article <v5ffk0$1ns3d$8@dont-email.me>,>
moviePig <nobody@nowhere.com> wrote:
>On 6/25/2024 3:52 PM, BTR1701 wrote:In article <v57ep4$3u7ea$2@dont-email.me>,>
moviePig <nobody@nowhere.com> wrote:
>On 6/22/2024 1:20 AM, The Horny Goat wrote:>On Fri, 21 Jun 2024 23:13:14 -0400, moviePig <nobody@nowhere.com>>
wrote:
>>But we don't care about the law as written, remember? It's only the>
spirit we should be concerned with. And the spirit of private
property laws certainly does allow for warning off mobs of people
in the middle of nationwide violent riots from trespassing on your
land and doing you harm.
Even if that were (absurdly) the "spirit" of private property, there
are other laws, including common-sense ones, whose "spirit" figures
in, too.
Nevertheless there are few cases in law where a warning to the bad
guys is required. One of the key points in the Bouchie case was that
in was on a farm a minimum of 1/2 hour from the nearest police
station and where 4 drunken people came onto his farm, one
attempting to get into the farmer's locked truck.
>
In such situations (particularly with no immediate expectation of
police attendance) I'm going to err on the side of the homeowner -
and I wouldn't impose any further burden on the homeowner because
he had reason to believe one or more of the 4 people in their truck
was inebriated or of a different ethnicity.
>
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Killing_of_Colten_Boushie
>
This particular verdict got roughly the same reaction as the OJ
Simpson case but on a smaller scale and I guarantee Rhino would
remember it.
Here's an instructive (but fictional) example:
>
The trespasser steps off the sidewalk and sits down on your
lawn.
>
You brandish your gun, saying, "Get off my lawn or I'll shoot."
>
He yawns and remains seated.
>
Comic-book fantasies aside, what do you do?
That's why you don't threaten deadly force unless you're willing to use
it.
>
However that's a separate issue from whether just holding a gun as a
screaming unruly mob-- which is already trespassing by its mere
presence-- marches up the street toward you in the middle of a
nationwide paroxysm of violence to which the police seem unwilling or
unable to stand in opposition is, or ought to be, a criminal act.
In the circumstances you yourself paint, there's obviously no such thing
as "*JUST* holding a gun".Were the rooftop Koreans during the Rodney King riots criminals?>
I don't remember what you're talking about ...but possibly they were
threatening deadly force.
Google it.
>
Theirs were among the only stores in those neighborhoods not looted
and/or burned, so apparently whatever they were threatening, it was
justified.
Many obscenely wrong measures can be effective without being justified.
to protect the poor wittle rioters from feeling skeered?
What exactly is "obscenely wrong" about arming yourself in the middle of
a violent riot and defending yourself and your property?
Why are you always on the side of the shitbags of this world?
Les messages affichés proviennent d'usenet.