Re: [Unschooling-dotcom] Re. Guns
Vicki A. Dennis
----- Original Message -----
From: <SandraDodd@...>
To: <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, February 11, 2001 12:52 PM
Subject: Re: [Unschooling-dotcom] Re. Guns
>
> In a message dated 2/11/01 11:29:23 AM, tonitoni@... writes:
>
> << If
> you were to use a gun, on say an intruder, and you killed the
> intruder, would you get charged for murder? How does the law look
> upon that. >>
>
> If he's in the house and you didn't invite him in, good chance you're clear.
> If he's in the yard... problem.
More pertinent factors are probably what state you live in as well as "who" you
are and "who" the intruder is. In some regions the "law" even makes a
distinction as to what time of day (night) it is!
Oft times if someone feels they are honestly defending their life or especially
the life of their family, then technicalities of what the "law" says may well
take a back seat.
Vicki
[email protected]
In America it seems that a lot of people have guns for protection. If
you were to use a gun, on say an intruder, and you killed the
intruder, would you get charged for murder? How does the law look
upon that.
Just curious
Marianne
you were to use a gun, on say an intruder, and you killed the
intruder, would you get charged for murder? How does the law look
upon that.
Just curious
Marianne
[email protected]
In a message dated 2/11/01 11:29:23 AM, tonitoni@... writes:
<< If
you were to use a gun, on say an intruder, and you killed the
intruder, would you get charged for murder? How does the law look
upon that. >>
If he's in the house and you didn't invite him in, good chance you're clear.
If he's in the yard... problem.
(Then all the details about juries and perceptions and what was allegedly
said or what you beleived might happen.)
<< If
you were to use a gun, on say an intruder, and you killed the
intruder, would you get charged for murder? How does the law look
upon that. >>
If he's in the house and you didn't invite him in, good chance you're clear.
If he's in the yard... problem.
(Then all the details about juries and perceptions and what was allegedly
said or what you beleived might happen.)
[email protected]
In a message dated 2/11/01 11:29:23 AM, tonitoni@... writes:
<< If
you were to use a gun, on say an intruder, and you killed the
intruder, would you get charged for murder? How does the law look
upon that. >>
I forgot to say that setting a trap with a gun is WAY illegal and you'll be
prosecuted quickly for that. Like setting a gun to go off when a door is
opened or something is never okay, apparently. I asked my husband what the
deal on that is and he said it's illegal to set a mantrap. That once a guy
wired up some bedsprings under a skylight that opened, because he knew
someone was planning to break in that way. He electrified the bedsprings,
the guy came in and died and it was called manslaughter or murder, but for
mitigating circumstances the guy was just on probation, BUT because of that,
it changed the laws. That's his memory, maybe faulty, and he says he thinks
it was in Florida.
The joke here is if you kill a guy in the yard, drag him into the house. It
might not be a joke if the investigating officers consider it to have been
totally justifiable and can just state that they found the body in X place.
We have a friend who was a cop, female. She quit. But when she was still
there, a man had been shot and killed by his wife or ex wife. She killed him
because he was molesting their daughter. He had molested other girls, and
he knew the wife had a gun, and so the investigators just wrote on their
paper "suicide" and the mom wasn't even charged.
Sandra
<< If
you were to use a gun, on say an intruder, and you killed the
intruder, would you get charged for murder? How does the law look
upon that. >>
I forgot to say that setting a trap with a gun is WAY illegal and you'll be
prosecuted quickly for that. Like setting a gun to go off when a door is
opened or something is never okay, apparently. I asked my husband what the
deal on that is and he said it's illegal to set a mantrap. That once a guy
wired up some bedsprings under a skylight that opened, because he knew
someone was planning to break in that way. He electrified the bedsprings,
the guy came in and died and it was called manslaughter or murder, but for
mitigating circumstances the guy was just on probation, BUT because of that,
it changed the laws. That's his memory, maybe faulty, and he says he thinks
it was in Florida.
The joke here is if you kill a guy in the yard, drag him into the house. It
might not be a joke if the investigating officers consider it to have been
totally justifiable and can just state that they found the body in X place.
We have a friend who was a cop, female. She quit. But when she was still
there, a man had been shot and killed by his wife or ex wife. She killed him
because he was molesting their daughter. He had molested other girls, and
he knew the wife had a gun, and so the investigators just wrote on their
paper "suicide" and the mom wasn't even charged.
Sandra
Lynda
This is inaccurate information. The law is "reasonable" force. This
translates to, "could you have accomplished the purpose without using the
gun." However, unless there are circumstances that leave a real question,
generally the charges do not reach the level of homicide. And, even if they
do not go so far as to take you to court, you get logged into the computer
and are red flagged for the future.
Lynda
translates to, "could you have accomplished the purpose without using the
gun." However, unless there are circumstances that leave a real question,
generally the charges do not reach the level of homicide. And, even if they
do not go so far as to take you to court, you get logged into the computer
and are red flagged for the future.
Lynda
----- Original Message -----
From: <SandraDodd@...>
To: <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, February 11, 2001 10:52 AM
Subject: Re: [Unschooling-dotcom] Re. Guns
>
> In a message dated 2/11/01 11:29:23 AM, tonitoni@... writes:
>
> << If
> you were to use a gun, on say an intruder, and you killed the
> intruder, would you get charged for murder? How does the law look
> upon that. >>
>
> If he's in the house and you didn't invite him in, good chance you're
clear.
> If he's in the yard... problem.
>
> (Then all the details about juries and perceptions and what was allegedly
> said or what you beleived might happen.)
>
>
> Message boards, timely articles, a free newsletter and more!
> Check it all out at: http://www.unschooling.com
>
> Addresses:
> Post message: [email protected]
> Unsubscribe: [email protected]
> List owner: [email protected]
> List settings page: http://www.egroups.com/group/Unschooling-dotcom
>
>
Lynda
The law reads "responable force." Each cop and DA defines this in a
different way. You could be charged with murder or aggravated assault or
you could just get a warning. Strickly luck of the draw. However, you will
be put in the crime computer.
Lynda
different way. You could be charged with murder or aggravated assault or
you could just get a warning. Strickly luck of the draw. However, you will
be put in the crime computer.
Lynda
----- Original Message -----
From: <tonitoni@...>
To: <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, February 11, 2001 10:27 AM
Subject: [Unschooling-dotcom] Re. Guns
> In America it seems that a lot of people have guns for protection. If
> you were to use a gun, on say an intruder, and you killed the
> intruder, would you get charged for murder? How does the law look
> upon that.
>
> Just curious
>
> Marianne
>
>
>
> Message boards, timely articles, a free newsletter and more!
> Check it all out at: http://www.unschooling.com
>
> Addresses:
> Post message: [email protected]
> Unsubscribe: [email protected]
> List owner: [email protected]
> List settings page: http://www.egroups.com/group/Unschooling-dotcom
>
>
[email protected]
In a message dated 2/11/01 12:24:04 PM, lurine@... writes:
<< The law reads "responable force." Each cop and DA defines this in a
different way. You could be charged with murder or aggravated assault or
you could just get a warning. Strickly luck of the draw. However, you will
be put in the crime computer. >>
I've never heard "responsible force" in any context. It might be local to
where Lynda is.
Nobody who has killed another person will just get a warning. There will be
an investigation for definite sure. If you're in the right, there's nothing
to warn you about and it is NOT luck of the draw, it's the judgment of the
court.
What "crime computer"?
<< The law reads "responable force." Each cop and DA defines this in a
different way. You could be charged with murder or aggravated assault or
you could just get a warning. Strickly luck of the draw. However, you will
be put in the crime computer. >>
I've never heard "responsible force" in any context. It might be local to
where Lynda is.
Nobody who has killed another person will just get a warning. There will be
an investigation for definite sure. If you're in the right, there's nothing
to warn you about and it is NOT luck of the draw, it's the judgment of the
court.
What "crime computer"?
[email protected]
In a message dated 2/11/01 12:24:08 PM, lurine@... writes:
<< This is inaccurate information. The law is "reasonable" force. This
translates to, "could you have accomplished the purpose without using the
gun." However, unless there are circumstances that leave a real question,
generally the charges do not reach the level of homicide. And, even if they
do not go so far as to take you to court, you get logged into the computer
and are red flagged for the future. >>
What law?
Are you in New Mexico?
There isn't a federal law, so you need to specify what you're talking about.
There's a deal with policemen locally for their own purposes which is that
they use the minimum force necessary to insure compliance. That means if
holding a guy down would have sufficed, they shouldn't hit him (and on up the
line).
For private citizens things are different in many ways. A friend was over
tonight who knows lots about firearms laws and says in New Mexico (unlike
Texas and Arizona which are more complex) if you believe a person means to do
you harm and he's coming toward you and you don't believe you can reasonably
and safely escape, you can shoot him. Not just inside your house. And your
car is considered real property, he said, so if someone tries to force his
way into your car, it's like your house. Shooting someone in the back would
be Very Bad, as he's not approaching, he's leaving.
<<This is inaccurate information. >>
Tell what you know to be true, don't tell me what I know is wrong.
Laws are very different in different places.
Sandra
<< This is inaccurate information. The law is "reasonable" force. This
translates to, "could you have accomplished the purpose without using the
gun." However, unless there are circumstances that leave a real question,
generally the charges do not reach the level of homicide. And, even if they
do not go so far as to take you to court, you get logged into the computer
and are red flagged for the future. >>
What law?
Are you in New Mexico?
There isn't a federal law, so you need to specify what you're talking about.
There's a deal with policemen locally for their own purposes which is that
they use the minimum force necessary to insure compliance. That means if
holding a guy down would have sufficed, they shouldn't hit him (and on up the
line).
For private citizens things are different in many ways. A friend was over
tonight who knows lots about firearms laws and says in New Mexico (unlike
Texas and Arizona which are more complex) if you believe a person means to do
you harm and he's coming toward you and you don't believe you can reasonably
and safely escape, you can shoot him. Not just inside your house. And your
car is considered real property, he said, so if someone tries to force his
way into your car, it's like your house. Shooting someone in the back would
be Very Bad, as he's not approaching, he's leaving.
<<This is inaccurate information. >>
Tell what you know to be true, don't tell me what I know is wrong.
Laws are very different in different places.
Sandra
Lynda
Laws are worldwide in actuality. When you go to court, case law is used
which is based on what has happened in the past in any court which can
support what you are presenting. There is criteria set nationwide as to
what shall be used to judge a criminal act.
As to my statement about "reasonable force," you have contradicted yourself
in that you say your friend told you "reasonably" which is the exact same
thing I just said. Is your friend a cop? I would suggest that you go and
ask a cop instead of doing a he said/she said thing.
Also, I have done amicus curea in 47 states and have done ex-offender work
in 49 states. I generally keep up on what is what in each state. NM is one
of the states I have worked with prisoners and the courts on various issues.
It is obvious to me you answered this simply for the sake of arguing.
Lynda
which is based on what has happened in the past in any court which can
support what you are presenting. There is criteria set nationwide as to
what shall be used to judge a criminal act.
As to my statement about "reasonable force," you have contradicted yourself
in that you say your friend told you "reasonably" which is the exact same
thing I just said. Is your friend a cop? I would suggest that you go and
ask a cop instead of doing a he said/she said thing.
Also, I have done amicus curea in 47 states and have done ex-offender work
in 49 states. I generally keep up on what is what in each state. NM is one
of the states I have worked with prisoners and the courts on various issues.
It is obvious to me you answered this simply for the sake of arguing.
Lynda
----- Original Message -----
From: <SandraDodd@...>
To: <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, February 11, 2001 8:59 PM
Subject: Re: [Unschooling-dotcom] Re. Guns
>
> In a message dated 2/11/01 12:24:08 PM, lurine@... writes:
>
> << This is inaccurate information. The law is "reasonable" force. This
> translates to, "could you have accomplished the purpose without using the
> gun." However, unless there are circumstances that leave a real question,
> generally the charges do not reach the level of homicide. And, even if
they
> do not go so far as to take you to court, you get logged into the computer
> and are red flagged for the future. >>
>
> What law?
>
> Are you in New Mexico?
> There isn't a federal law, so you need to specify what you're talking
about.
>
> There's a deal with policemen locally for their own purposes which is that
> they use the minimum force necessary to insure compliance. That means if
> holding a guy down would have sufficed, they shouldn't hit him (and on up
the
> line).
>
> For private citizens things are different in many ways. A friend was over
> tonight who knows lots about firearms laws and says in New Mexico (unlike
> Texas and Arizona which are more complex) if you believe a person means to
do
> you harm and he's coming toward you and you don't believe you can
reasonably
> and safely escape, you can shoot him. Not just inside your house. And
your
> car is considered real property, he said, so if someone tries to force his
> way into your car, it's like your house. Shooting someone in the back
would
> be Very Bad, as he's not approaching, he's leaving.
>
> <<This is inaccurate information. >>
>
> Tell what you know to be true, don't tell me what I know is wrong.
> Laws are very different in different places.
>
> Sandra
>
>
>
> Message boards, timely articles, a free newsletter and more!
> Check it all out at: http://www.unschooling.com
>
> Addresses:
> Post message: [email protected]
> Unsubscribe: [email protected]
> List owner: [email protected]
> List settings page: http://www.egroups.com/group/Unschooling-dotcom
>
>
Unschooling.com
----- Original Message -----
From: "Lynda" <lurine@...>
To: <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, February 12, 2001 8:22 PM
Subject: Re: [Unschooling-dotcom] Re. Guns
> Laws are worldwide in actuality. When you go to court, case law is used
> which is based on what has happened in the past in any court which can
> support what you are presenting. There is criteria set nationwide as to
> what shall be used to judge a criminal act.
>
Isn't it muddier than this? There are all kinds of nuances in every state
that bring different kinds of charges. I suppose the easiest one to use as
an example are death penatly cases. Some states have one, some states do
not. Case law from one state can be brought up at trial, but it is not
binding out of that jurisdiction, well it's not binding no matter what
really. Precedent can always be overturned or changed. Westlaw is an
online service lawyers use to find similar cases, but even an episode of Law
and Order will highlight NY law is way different from any other state even
for federal offenses like murder and larceny :)
And of course juvie offenses are even more chaotic.
Lisa
Lynda
The problem with the law is that while it was set up in the U.S. to be
"innocent until proven guilty," it is in all actuality the reverse.
Generally speaking judges do whatever they please and a good percentage of
those who draw jury duty shouldn't be allowed out without a leash. A lot of
the lawyers you wouldn't want to represent you in a $5 parking ticket matter
let along a capital case. Lawyers sleep through cases, come to court
hungover and sometimes drunk.
And juvenile courts are quite frequently the worst of the worst. Judges cut
kids loose that should be locked up for life and hand out max sentences
where even the prosecution thought they didn't have enough to win the case.
And heaven forbid that we expect them to follow anything that resembles a
line of logic or reason. Some of the more current homeschooling cases are
good examples of that!
Lynda
"innocent until proven guilty," it is in all actuality the reverse.
Generally speaking judges do whatever they please and a good percentage of
those who draw jury duty shouldn't be allowed out without a leash. A lot of
the lawyers you wouldn't want to represent you in a $5 parking ticket matter
let along a capital case. Lawyers sleep through cases, come to court
hungover and sometimes drunk.
And juvenile courts are quite frequently the worst of the worst. Judges cut
kids loose that should be locked up for life and hand out max sentences
where even the prosecution thought they didn't have enough to win the case.
And heaven forbid that we expect them to follow anything that resembles a
line of logic or reason. Some of the more current homeschooling cases are
good examples of that!
Lynda
----- Original Message -----
From: "Unschooling.com" <LisaBugg@...>
To: <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, February 12, 2001 8:31 PM
Subject: Re: [Unschooling-dotcom] Re. Guns
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Lynda" <lurine@...>
> To: <[email protected]>
> Sent: Monday, February 12, 2001 8:22 PM
> Subject: Re: [Unschooling-dotcom] Re. Guns
>
>
> > Laws are worldwide in actuality. When you go to court, case law is used
> > which is based on what has happened in the past in any court which can
> > support what you are presenting. There is criteria set nationwide as to
> > what shall be used to judge a criminal act.
> >
>
> Isn't it muddier than this? There are all kinds of nuances in every
state
> that bring different kinds of charges. I suppose the easiest one to use
as
> an example are death penatly cases. Some states have one, some states do
> not. Case law from one state can be brought up at trial, but it is not
> binding out of that jurisdiction, well it's not binding no matter what
> really. Precedent can always be overturned or changed. Westlaw is an
> online service lawyers use to find similar cases, but even an episode of
Law
> and Order will highlight NY law is way different from any other state even
> for federal offenses like murder and larceny :)
>
> And of course juvie offenses are even more chaotic.
>
> Lisa
>
>
>
> Message boards, timely articles, a free newsletter and more!
> Check it all out at: http://www.unschooling.com
>
> Addresses:
> Post message: [email protected]
> Unsubscribe: [email protected]
> List owner: [email protected]
> List settings page: http://www.egroups.com/group/Unschooling-dotcom
>
>