Defending their turf...
This is a discussion on Defending their turf... within the In the News: The Good, the Bad and the Ugly forums, part of the The Back Porch category; Originally Posted by ExSoldier762
Okay first of all, little johnny was never a threat to anybody's LIFE. You still can't kill for PROPERTY in Florida. ...
-
March 7th, 2006 01:05 PM
#16
Distinguished Member
Array

Originally Posted by
ExSoldier762
Okay first of all, little johnny was never a threat to anybody's LIFE. You still can't kill for PROPERTY in Florida. Second, the moment Little Johnny turned his back and FLED and the "victim" pursued, the ROLES changed. Now the "victim" is the AGGRESSOR and little Johnny is a new "victim." What do you think would happen to a new witness who happened onto little Johnny getting his clock cleaned into a coma but who had NOT seen the first part? The new witness truly believes as any reasonable man might believe that Little Johnny is under violent attack and in danger of being killed and RIGHT NOW...and having a CCW the witness, draws and kills the assailant. What now?
Also, it is not quite fair to assert that all nonviolent property offenders DO become violent criminals who stalk and prey upon the weak....
I understand what you are saying EX, but that was just an example of when BG should have some level of protection against excessive force and where his family might feel the need to seek legal action against the victim. Nothing more.
I don't believe all thieves become violent felons, but I do believe most violent felons started out as common thieves
Again, I am just playing devals advocate here. Trying to show that their are some instances where a criminal may have a right to seek damages. I also agree the cases of such are too far out of hand due to the profitability of todays lawyers.
Not trying to light anyones fire here.
"fundamental principle of American law that a government and its agents are under no general duty to provide public services, such as police protection, to any individual citizen." [Warren v. District of Columbia,(D.C. Ct. of Ap., 1981)]
If I have to explain it, you wouldn't understand
-
March 7th, 2006 01:05 PM
Remove Ads
-
March 7th, 2006 01:32 PM
#17
-
March 7th, 2006 01:42 PM
#18
Distinguished Member
Array

Originally Posted by
QKShooter
But, a special "DITTO" to:
[Bad Guys
are killing "witnesses" AKA any person that has seen their face and/or can provide any possible identification information as to who they are.
They are doing that even after they commit robbery/theft where only a paltry amount of cash was ultimately taken.
You must assume that if you are ever antagonistically approached by an unknown person AKA possible assailant wielding a knife, machete, firearm, AX handle (whatever weapon) that they have in hand...will be the possible
instrument of your Serious Injury or demise
even if you do absolutely nothing...and full comply with their "wishes" ~ That's the Cold, Hard, reality of it all.
Can't argue with that.
"fundamental principle of American law that a government and its agents are under no general duty to provide public services, such as police protection, to any individual citizen." [Warren v. District of Columbia,(D.C. Ct. of Ap., 1981)]
If I have to explain it, you wouldn't understand
Posting Permissions
- You may not post new threads
- You may not post replies
- You may not post attachments
- You may not edit your posts
-
Forum Rules
Similar Threads
-
By Truckinfavis in forum Home (And Away From Home) Defense Discussion
Replies: 14
Last Post: June 7th, 2010, 10:35 PM
-
By svinfinity45 in forum Carry & Defensive Scenarios
Replies: 50
Last Post: October 7th, 2008, 07:20 PM
-
By jahwarrior72 in forum Carry & Defensive Scenarios
Replies: 39
Last Post: September 20th, 2007, 06:16 AM
-
By stamford68 in forum Carry & Defensive Scenarios
Replies: 35
Last Post: July 11th, 2007, 06:05 PM
-
By ecbaatz in forum Carry & Defensive Scenarios
Replies: 19
Last Post: June 10th, 2005, 08:04 AM
Search tags for this page