Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Tue, 25 Aug 1992 15:40:15 EDT
From:         Jamie <PL436000@BROWNVM.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: Forwarded mail for LISTS.POLITICS

>From:         "Robert sprg0002@tulsajc.bitnet" <SPRG0002@TULSAJC.BITNET>

> I would think the term *homeowner* could be construed to mean resident.

Yeah, it can be *construed* to mean "pancake" if you construe
hard enough. But in law, it will be construed to mean "homeowner."
Funny thing, huh?

> But, I'm sure you'll find a syntactical problem with this too rather than
> admitting the merit of the intent of the law.

I'm more worried about semantic problems, actually, which are
extremely important in law. For example:

> > >More to the point, I'd like to know if any states allow the use
> > >of deadly force to protect PROPERTY, as well as personal safety.
>
> Pay attention.  If the uninvited person is within the confines of your
> residence, no further qualification is required.

I paid attention. Here is what you said:

 > Many, quite a few, several, at least a couple of states have what has become
 > known as the "Make My Day" law.  Basically, they provide for a legal defense
 > for using deadly force when a homeowner fears for his/her safety.

Using deadly force when a homeowner fears for his/her safety, compared
to using deadly force when any resident of a house sees any uninvited
person his/her house, whether s/he fears for his/her safety or not.

Perhaps Robert thinks those are the same thing. Perhaps he thinks
the distinctions involved are "syntactic."

> >I have no difficulty
> > justifying my use of deadly force.
>
> > >If you have no difficulty, let's see a justification. Sheesh.
>
> I already did.

You did? Where? What was the justification?

You may be under the misimpression that a "justification" is you,
Robert, asserting what you believe, or what you would do in the
middle of the night. But in fact, that isn't a justification at all.

What is the justification?

> By the way, my name isn't Sheesh.

Oh, no, I'm aware of that. I was invoking the One True God, Sheesh.

> > >The law requires you to use less than deadly force if that's all
> > >that is necessary. Robert suggests that if you've only wounded the
> > >person you made a mistake.
>
> Let me put it this way.  Don't point a gun unless you intend to use it.
> If you use it, use it effectively.  Shooting to wound is a good way to get
> yourself killed.  Would I reload to finish him off?  Probably not.  Would
> I be victimized by the judicial system for letting him live?  Probably.

This is really getting stupid.

"Shooting to wound is a good way to get yourself killed." Would
you care to give some evidence for that assertion? Maybe Andy
Freeman would like to help you out.

You think that the judicial system would "victimize" you if you
merely wounded an intruder rather than killed him? On what basis
do you say so? (Here's my guess: you have no basis at all. I truly
hope I'm wrong about this.)

> > >And maybe I'm starting to see Jimbo's point. Robert's Christian
> > >respect for human life leaves a bit to be desired.
>
> You see Bimbo's point because you're in basic agreement with it.  Instead
> of an honorarium, "Logic Czar" appears to be some new form of mental disorder.

Hm.
"honorarium" doesn't mean what Robert thinks it means, but I guess
that's no surprise.

Rather than respond, I think I'll just leave Robert's concluding
name-calling ("Bimbo," "mental disorder") to speak for itself.

However, it would be nice to hear from the other Christians. Do
all of you believe that a good Christian should kill someone who
would otherwise steal the Christians worldly possessions? Should
a good Christian shoot to kill instead of to wound? I could
consult St. Thomas, but I'd also like to know what contemporary
Christians think. And as I pointed out a couple of postings back,
I will not assume that any particular Christian (especially Carl
or Robert!) speaks for the whole.

Jamie
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU