 |
Duration: 13:56 minutes Upload Time: 2007-12-01 14:59:48 User: merddyn2002 :::: Favorites :::: Top Videos of Day |
|
Description: Deadly Force and Defense of Property - Joe Horn Woman raped while on the phone with 911: http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=fc8_1187887010 |
|
Comments | |
| merddyn2002 ::: Favorites 2008-01-06 12:25:00 Bottom Line: If I catch you stealing my stuff you're going home with brand new lead implants and I will most likely send your family a bill for the bullets. __________________________________________________ | |
| merddyn2002 ::: Favorites 2008-01-06 12:24:48 well in a best case scenario I would stop you from taking my property in the first place, with DF in need be and so justified by law. Should you actually get away with the crime it would be up to me to prove that the items you gave to your kids are mine and to get the police involved. I don't really see what bringing your kids into this discussion buys you other than unnecessarily clouding the issue. __________________________________________________ | |
| trashpiece ::: Favorites 2008-01-06 05:37:14 I like your "my property = my life" logic". What if I took everything you had and gave it to my kids? Should your kids get it, or should my kids keep it? __________________________________________________ | |
| odyssey12784 ::: Favorites 2008-01-05 19:43:31 Ok fine. I disagree with that logic. End of story. __________________________________________________ | |
| Constantine1911 ::: Favorites 2008-01-05 03:17:53 Same as you merddyn2002, I just might like it a little more. __________________________________________________ | |
| reason311 ::: Favorites 2008-01-03 22:13:40 No you did not. You expressed mere sentiments. __________________________________________________ | |
| l0udcheese ::: Favorites 2008-01-03 22:05:15 i dont know because i live in canada! __________________________________________________ | |
| odyssey12784 ::: Favorites 2008-01-01 06:30:35 Reason - Revelatory of what? The fact that I already addressed this a few weeks ago? __________________________________________________ | |
| reason311 ::: Favorites 2007-12-30 13:31:49 Odyssey, Your incapacity to address the implied f first principals here is revelatory. Why would John Locke, the enlightenment philosopher who influenced the very creation of our country as well as our founding document, the declaration of independence, justify, philosophically, the killing of a thief? __________________________________________________ | |
| odyssey12784 ::: Favorites 2007-12-29 18:50:24 I agree 100 percent with you there. I would not be a good juror for this case (neither would anyone who's followed the case or is in this forum for that matter). __________________________________________________ | |
| One5thOfWhiskey ::: Favorites 2007-12-28 00:11:14 Why would the Judge want to put someone in a position to choose between a deeply held belief and following the law, when all he has to do is excuse the juror and find one who doesn't have the conflict? (This goes for the dirty Harrys out there too, who would answer "Hell yeah! Anyone who steals anything needs hot buckshot in their ass!" __________________________________________________ | |
| One5thOfWhiskey ::: Favorites 2007-12-28 00:10:19 Very true. It's hard to eliminate all bias. The best we can do is have a vigorous voir dire and use our peremptory strikes accordingly. Even then, there is no guarantee. I suppose what I was trying to get across is there are different levels of bias. If a juror says "There is NEVER ANY justification to shoot someone over property", there is a good chance the Judge would simply boot the potential juror for cause. __________________________________________________ | |
| One5thOfWhiskey ::: Favorites 2007-12-27 23:52:25 Try this out and see how it works for you. Joe's actions are justified per the provisions of 9.41 (simple "force" was justified). Per 9.42(1) and 9.42(2-b)(3-b) as "force" was justified and the perps were fleeing a burglary and Joe reasonably feared force other than DF would expose him or another to serious bodily harm. Per 9.43(1)as Joe believed they had consumated theft of the property. __________________________________________________ | |
| One5thOfWhiskey ::: Favorites 2007-12-27 23:41:12 9.41 doesn't speak as to DF odyssey, only "force". 9.42 speaks of DF and says it may be used if "force" were justified under 9.41, together with the additional requirements of 9.42. Arguing that DF must be justified under 9.41 is incorrect. As far as a reasonable person believing the property would be recovered, perhaps so. That still doesn't discount 9.42(3)(b). __________________________________________________ | |
| Deke101 ::: Favorites 2007-12-27 12:44:25 ALL the criteria were MET. 9.41 Protection of Property, 9.42 Use of Deadly Force, AND 9.43 Protection of THIRD Person's Property. It should also be pointed out several other people who have shot burglars in the Dallas area have NOT been convicted of anything. Not much more to argue about. __________________________________________________ | |
No comments:
Post a Comment