From: ataylor@nmsu.edu (Nosy)
Newsgroups: misc.legal,soc.men,soc.women
Subject: Context Switches (Was: Self-Defense)
Date: 31 Jul 92 15:53:15 GMT
	<1992Jul23.035153.2572@midway.uchicago.edu>
	<ATAYLOR.92Jul24110120@gauss.nmsu.edu>
	<1992Jul30.005539.3340@midway.uchicago.edu>
Organization: NMSU Computer Science

<In article <1992Jul30.005539.3340@midway.uchicago.edu> thf2@ellis.uchicago.edu (Ted Frank) writes:
<   In article <ATAYLOR.92Jul24110120@gauss.nmsu.edu> ataylor@nmsu.edu (Nosy) writes:
<   ><In article <1992Jul23.035153.2572@midway.uchicago.edu> thf2@ellis.uchicago.edu (Ted Frank) writes:
<   ><   In article <1992Jul22.225007.275@lmpsbbs.comm.mot.com> bhv@areaplg2.corp.mot.com (Bronis Vidugiris) writes:
<   ><   >In article <1992Jul22.104724.1@acad3.alaska.edu> fsars@acad3.alaska.edu (Allen R Sparks) writes:
<   ><   >)You're worried about playing FAIR all of a sudden?  Murder is still
<   ><   >)murder no matter how it's done.
<   ><   >
<   ><   >Self defense isn't murder.  However, killing someone in their sleep is
<   ><   >*obviously* not self defense.
<   >
<   ><   Situation: You're a prisoner in a cell.  Your prisonmate, who's five
<   ><   inches taller, and a hundred pounds heavier, whom you have no hope 
<   ><   of defending yourself against tells you one night: "When dawn comes,
<   ><   I'm going to kill you."  He then goes to sleep.  Assume that going to
<   ><   a guard for assistance has proven futile in the past, and that you have
<   ><   no reason to believe otherwise now.  What do you do?  What should the
<   ><   law be?
<   >
<   >	You mean that the "burning bed" case took place in a prison?

<   1. Where do I say that?  

	I guess the word "context" has no meaning for LawyerWannbe
	Frank.

<"Murder is still murder no matter how it's done."
<      "Killing someone in their sleep is obviously not self-defense."  That's
<      what I'm responding to.  Note that I changed the thread-title.  I see
<      no reason to be handcuffed to what you want to discuss when there are
<      more interesting issues being brought up.

	AH. "I'm not making headway under the old context, I'll
	change the game to one I can win".

	Hardly a new net.tactic, Frank.

<   >	Odd, I thought it was in a house; you know, with a front door,
<   >	back door, windows....openings in the buildings through
<   >	which one may exit?

<   2. Odd, I thought that someone acting in self-defense had no duty to
<      retreat from their own home.  

	It depends on the state, Frank. See, for example, a certain
	Mass. decision of some years back, since overridden (I
	believe) by the legislature.

	Other North Eastern states have similar laws.

	Consult a real lawyer for further details, Frank.

<(Though some states do require retreat
<      from one's own home in cases where the original aggressor is also a
<      resident.)

	Yep. Do you think that has any bearing on the "burning
	bed" case, Frank? Yes or no? If yes, then what are
	you quibbling about?

<   ><			 ted frank | thf2@midway.uchicago.edu
<   ><			 the university of chicago law school 
<   ><			 official member of the cultural elit
<   >
<   >	I'm glad to see that the cultural "elit" obviously 
<   >	learned how to spell in public schools.

<   3. I'm glad to see your grasp of irony is as strong as ever.
 
	Given a choice between interpreting Frank's .sig
	as mis-spelled or ironic, which is more obviously
	the case?

	And what does all of Frank's fulminations have to
	do with the issue of burning sleeping people to
	death, then claiming "self defense"?

	Could Frank be trying to change the subject yet
	again to one he likes?
Xref: sparky misc.legal:14940 alt.censorship:6349 talk.politics.misc:36179