Posted by ? on March 27, 2009, 1:50 pm
> The brazeros aren't getting any work here, due to boy Bush 's economic
> depression. and I'm afraid they're going to start getting hostile. My house
> and garage are both alarmed.
Yes, you can expect more crimes against property now that there are so
many
unemployed Mexicans on the street. There are going to be a lot more.
The supreme court has ordered California to reduce its prison
overpopulation, so there are going to be a lot more dangerous Mexicans
and Blacks on our highways and streets.
Posted by Beav on March 27, 2009, 4:13 pm
>> The brazeros aren't getting any work here, due to boy Bush 's economic
>> depression. and I'm afraid they're going to start getting hostile. My
>> house
>> and garage are both alarmed.
> Yes, you can expect more crimes against property now that there are so
> many
> unemployed Mexicans on the street. There are going to be a lot more.
> The supreme court has ordered California to reduce its prison
> overpopulation, so there are going to be a lot more dangerous Mexicans
> and Blacks on our highways and streets.
What, they're not going to release any crazed white dudes like yourself?
--
Beav
VN 750
Zed 1000
OMF# 19
Posted by Jujitsu Lizard on March 27, 2009, 4:57 pm
>>>
>>>Generally speaking, you want to avoid guns.
>>
>> What an incredibly butt-stupid statement.
>>
>>> I'm not a gun-o-phobe: I have
>>>two in my safe at home. The issues, as another poster pointed out, have
>>>to
>>>do with "no lesser force", "reluctant participant", etc.
>>>
>>>As G. Gordon Liddy (did I spell his last name right?) said, "Never
>>>produce a
>>>gun unless you are legally entitled to use it".
>>
>> Like to protect yourself in your own garage.
> Protect yourself from what, exactly? Someone looking for a job maybe?
That was my point exactly. Going back to Thumper's original story, I don't
see that the individual involved did anything that would rise to the level
of requiring deadly force.
However, it would also be a legitimate point to make that people can do
things that don't [yet] rise to the level of deadly force but that would
make an ordinary person feel very threatened or may be leading towards a
situation where deadly force is appropriate. Cornering someone in their own
garage is one such behavior. It could be a lead-in for far more serious
behavior.
Bernard Goetz (spelling?) comes to mind. There are a lot ways to ask
someone for $5; some more threatening than others.
It is hard to know whether a person is a normal person who is just
frustrated, an unusual individual, or dangerous.
99 times out of a 100, producing a firearm will cause the other party to
depart. But for that 1 out of 100, you have to be legally and morally
justified in pulling the trigger. If you shoot someone for trying to take a
gun away from you, the question will naturally arise of why you had a gun in
play in the first place.
Bearspray seems a better overall solution.
Guns are really bad news in marginal situations.
The Lizard
Posted by B. Peg on March 27, 2009, 7:28 pm
Hate to mention it, but the time a cop determines to shot or not is around 2
seconds. Stretch that out to ten seconds and the perp wins. If you are not
a cop, in court you will undoubtedly lose since the defense will stack the
jury against you. CA has the "equal force" law as well that is preached in
gun ownership classes.
B~ <-- who has spent too much time in jury selections.....>
Posted by Steve on March 27, 2009, 9:18 pm
> Bearspray seems a better overall solution.
Pepperspray is also problematic. Brandishing or using it without good
reason is also a felony.
XML Sitemap
> depression. and I'm afraid they're going to start getting hostile. My house
> and garage are both alarmed.