|
Forum Rules | Firearms Safety | Firearms Photos | Links | Library | Lost Password | Email Changes |
Register | FAQ | Calendar | Search | Today's Posts | Mark Forums Read |
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
July 25, 2009, 09:30 PM | #51 | |
Staff
Join Date: November 23, 2005
Location: California - San Francisco
Posts: 9,471
|
Quote:
|
|
July 25, 2009, 09:39 PM | #52 |
Senior Member
Join Date: November 15, 2007
Location: Outside KC, MO
Posts: 10,128
|
Stija needs to consult with...
... the Oklahoma pharmacist.
He made sure his BG won't testify. Doesn't seem to have helped him; quite the opposite. |
July 25, 2009, 09:40 PM | #53 | |
Staff In Memoriam
Join Date: October 31, 2007
Location: Western Florida panhandle
Posts: 11,069
|
Quote:
No where is it claimed that intentionally KILLING a person is acceptable. It is, however, legal to use lethal force to "STOP" in many situations. To make the statement that you intend to make sure you are the only one able to testify screams that you intend to make sure the guy is dead for that reason which makes it FIRST DEGREE MURDER since you publically professed prior intent to kill! Brent |
|
July 25, 2009, 10:31 PM | #54 | |
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,660
|
OK folks. Just this once, I'm going to be Diplomatic and see if I can turn on some lights in stija's brain.
Stija, in post # 18 you replied to Tennessee Gentleman by saying: Quote:
First. The purpose of using lethal force in a self defense situation is to STOP the aggression that caused you to fear for your life. It is unlawful in all jurisdictions to keep shooting if the aggression has ceased to exist. That is rightfully called murder. No ifs, ands, or buts. Second. What you write on the Internet can be discovered and used against you in a court of law or equity (civil suits). Don't ever presume anything to the contrary. Third. In a self defense shooting, nothing is ever simple or black and white. Never presume otherwise. To do so, is to spike your own defense. There are several recent examples of this kind of thinking, scattered throughout TFL. Fourth. Normally, when I see someone espouse an illegal action, they are summarily banned. The only saving grace you have, is that JohnKSa intervened before I could hit the ban button. Count yourself lucky that you have been allowed to stay as long as you have. Finally, I believe John has a few parting words to say... |
|
July 25, 2009, 10:31 PM | #55 | ||
Staff
Join Date: February 12, 2001
Location: DFW Area
Posts: 24,971
|
Quote:
Your question can be answered two ways and both, at best, imply illegal activity. 1. Your testimony must legally be the truth and will be borne out by the evidence so it doesn't matter whether the intruder is alive or dead nor does it matter what he says. UNLESS, of course, your intent is to lie to the police and perjure yourself and you want to make sure you won't be contradicted. That is clearly illegal. 2. To "make sure the intruder is expired" taken literally means that you take whatever steps are required to kill the intruder so he doesn't testify against you. That is clearly illegal. The ONLY cogent reasons for "making sure the intruder is expired" are illegal. fiddletown's post clearly spells out one of the possible reasons, the only other possible one is to conceal the truth which means you are trying to (at best) deceive the legal system, a crime in and of itself and (at worst) conceal a crime that would be revealed if your story was not the only one given to the police. I'm very disappointed at the recent rash of folks advocating actions that are not consistent with either the spirit or intent of the laws governing deadly force and self-defence. That is diametrically opposed to the basic philosophy upon which TFL is based. It's completely unacceptable. Quote:
__________________
Do you know about the TEXAS State Rifle Association?
|
||
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|
|