HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: ataylor@nmsu.edu (Nosy)
Subject: Home Outdoor Lighting 
Organization: NMSU Computer Science
Distribution: talk
Date: Wed, 2 Sep 1992 03:10:30 GMT


	The issue of "Guns & Ammo" on the news-stands now
	has a very good article on home security with 
	an emphasis on the use of lighting to make breakins
	less likely. 

	Yes, I know, "Guns & Ammo", yuck...what a macho rag.
	Ok, so ask for a brown paper bag....


	Nevertheless, the article in question has some good stuff.
	
	First of all, the author suggests walking around your
	house *at night* with the interior lights on and just 
	looking; what windows are hidden from view to passing 
	traffic? A burglar or other housebreaker could lurk
	there undetected, even if a police car were parked
	in front of your house!

	Sometimes such "lurking places" can be fixed by
	simply trimming foliage, other case may require
	more modification such as lighting, removing/
	changing fences or removing bushes.

	What windows can a casual passerby look in and see
	the interior of your dwelling? It hardly needs 
	pointing out that this is a security breach. 
	Curtains get worn or torn; replacements are cheap
	peace of mind that people on the street cannot
	see into your living room or bedroom.


	Are there any doors that are protected from view
	all day? While fences are good, solid fences
	may be making it too easy for an intruder to
	break into your home; chain link keeps dogs/kids
	inside and people out, but can still be seen through.

	Motion/heat sensitive lights are now available from
	many of the discount home improvement stores; they 
	cost less than $50 and come with instructions for 
	installation. Virtually anyone can install such a 
	light in a few minutes over a door, if an outlet
	already exists. These lights will come on if anyone
	approaches the door within some distance (some lights
	allow you to set this distance), "spotlighting" an
	intruder and hopefully motivating a retreat.


	The author claims that one can greatly reduce the chances
	of breakin on an "average house" for $200 or less;
	less than the deductable on most home insurance and
	FAR less than the "cost" of an assault in one's own
	home.
From: alan@ROS6.GSFC.NASA.GOV (Alan Smale)
Newsgroups: talk.rape
Subject: Re: Time constraints on law review types
Date: 28 Aug 92 18:42:48 GMT

Is anybody ever going to actually POST this California statute, so those
of us who only have access to science libraries can see it?

Or is this circular "I know the answers and you bozos don't" argument
going to go on for ever?

If you don't want to post it, Email it to me. I'll promise not to forward
it to your adversary/ies, if you like. I just want to know the answer
after wasting time reading all this flame exchange.
Newsgroups: talk.rape
From: thf2@ellis.uchicago.edu (Ted Frank)
Subject: Re: Store bought brew
Reply-To: thf2@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 1992 14:58:18 GMT

In article <1992Aug27.102352.9731@uoft02.utoledo.edu> dcrosgr@uoft02.utoledo.edu writes:
>Just a possibility. never count on a jury deciding ANYTHING in a particular
>way, as they sometime come up with wrong results. Which is why JNOV exists.

Just a little nitpick for the benefit of those netters who Dar keeps trying
to intimidate with his use of legal terminology -- JNOV no longer exists
in the federal courts.  Congress repealed it last year.
-- 
             ......................................................
             ted frank | thf2@midway.uchicago.edu | std disclaimers
             the university of chicago law skool, chicago, illinois
             it's log!  log!  log!  it's big, it's heavy, it's wood
From: dcrosgr@uoft02.utoledo.edu
Newsgroups: talk.rape
Subject: Re: Store bought brew
Date: 29 Aug 92 02:34:18 EST
Organization: University of Toledo, Computer Services

In article <14366@auspex-gw.auspex.com>, bae@Auspex.COM (Brian Ehrmantraut) writes:
> In article <1992Aug27.101540.9730@uoft02.utoledo.edu>, dcrosgr@uoft02.utoledo.edu writes:
>> In article <14322@auspex-gw.auspex.com>, bae@Auspex.COM (Brian Ehrmantraut) writes:
>> > 	Wrong.  I found it easily.  Surely you can as well...
>> 
>> IF an applicable one existed--surely I could. 
> 
> 	It exists.  I have it on-line.  I, and others, have made offers to make
> it available to (almost) anyone who asks.   Wake up.
> 
>> But Ataylor is no expert and he
>> may have found some law against using poison in your garden for all we know.
> 
> 	Note that your dispute on this point is with Andy Freeman, not with
> Ataylor.  Is this an example of your usual attention to details?
> 
>> I do not believe there is a law which prohibits a woman from using a can of
>> WD-40 for self-defense if she is being raped.
> 
> 	That is not the original point of dispute, now is it?  We were 
> discussing the consequences of carrying certain "weapons"...  


No Brian, you are wrong. That IS the original point of the dispute. Some people
were posting recipies for home-made rape-repellants for states where mace is
illegal. I suggested that a woman could buy a trial size can of WD-40 and not
worry about being prosecuted.

Then people jumped in claiming the DA could easily prosecute her. Andy claimed
that CA law would send her to jail just as fast for WD-40 as for carrying mace.

You appear to know the rest as you have been involved in it.

Welcome to flame city.

DC
From: thf2@ellis.uchicago.edu (Ted Frank)
Newsgroups: talk.rape
Subject: Re: Store bought brew
Date: 26 Aug 92 01:30:32 GMT
Reply-To: thf2@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations

In article <1992Aug25.003354.9670@uoft02.utoledo.edu> dcrosgr@uoft02.utoledo.edu writes:
>In article <1992Aug24.212627.1521@usenet.ins.cwru.edu>, rpetsche@mrg.tmc.edu (Rolfe G. Petschek) writes:
>> Prosecution Witness:  Yes.
>> A: Where did you get that WD40?
>> PW: My purse.
>> A: Do you usually carry WD40 in your purse?
>> PW: No (perjury).
>
>(So? What is your point?)
>
>> A: Why did you have WD40 in your purse this particular day?
>> PW: To fix my squeaky door (perjury).
>
>(See above)
>
>> A: Where is your squeaky door?
>> PW: At home.
>> A: When did you purchase the WD40 and do you have receipts etc?
>
>Objection your honor. Irrelevant under rule 401.

Judge: Objection overruled.  The time of purchase is both material
       and probative are relevant evidence as to intent, and counsel
       should recognize that.  Now cease these outbursts before I
       have you bound and gagged in contempt of court.

>> PW: Several months before the incident.
>> A: Ah, and why was it in your purse at the time of the incident, just
>> 	after you went to a movie?
>> PW: I forgot it there.
>> A: Isn't it big and messy?
>
>Objection again your honor. Counsel is fully awary this is not permitted under
>the relevant evidence rule. Further, counsel is trying to tesitify, or is
>presenting his closing arguments a bit too early.

A: Your honor, the unwieldiness of a large can of WD-40 in a small purse
   is certainly relevant.
J: Correct, counsel.  Objection overruled.

>> PW: No, not really.
>> A: But it is always there?
>
>Irrelevant you honor. Please ask counsel to adhere to the rules of evidence.

J: Objection overruled.  The jury is entitled to know how long defendant
   keeps WD-40 in her purse.  And it's "your honor."

(Etc.)
-- 
             ......................................................
             ted frank | thf2@midway.uchicago.edu | std disclaimers
             the university of chicago law skool, chicago, illinois
             it's log!  log!  log!  it's big, it's heavy, it's wood
Newsgroups: talk.rape
From: smgarvin@nyx.cs.du.edu (susan garvin)
Subject: Re: WD 40's effectiveness
X-Disclaimer: Nyx is a public access Unix system run by the University
	of Denver for the Denver community.  The University has neither
	control over nor responsibility for the opinions of users.
Organization: Nyx, Public Access Unix at U. of Denver Math/CS dept.
Date: Mon, 31 Aug 92 18:19:19 GMT



Thanks for the report, Tim.  I have had people tell me before
that they carry hairspray as a chemical weapon (and I can
vouch for its effectiveness as an eye irritant), but I'd
never heard any claims about WD-40 (tm) before.  I hope
that people test things like this before taking someone
else's advice.  I'd hate to think that a man or woman was
raped when they could have escaped because of poor advice.

Susan

Newsgroups: talk.rape
From: sheehan@pagosa.scd.ucar.edu (Tim Sheehan)
Subject: WD 40's effectiveness
Organization: NCAR/UCAR
Date: Mon, 31 Aug 1992 16:41:49 GMT

With all the talk about WD-40 as a rape deterent, I decided to do a
little testing wrt its range.

I used a nearly-full large can of WD-40 that I have had for about a
year. I sprayed it straight ahead and found that it had a maximum range
of about 4 feet with no wind blowing whatsoever. Even a slight breeze
made it hard to control the stream enough to hit a stationary target at
that distance.

Even without the wind, I would have had trouble hitting a moving target
at that distance. If someone were rushing towards me in an attack, I
would probably not be able to hit them in the eyes at a distance of more
than 2 feet.

I had the same results on the range and accuracy with both the regular
nozzle and the nozzle with the little red directing tube attached.

As far as the value of WD 40 as a deterent, its vapors are not noxious.
In fact, I find their odor on the pleasant side. I do not know how much
of an eye irritant it would be, and I don't plan on testing it.



-- 
-Tim-

sheehan@ncar.ucar.edu

Newsgroups: talk.rape
From: ataylor@nmsu.edu (Nosy)
Subject: Re: Self-Defense in the Home
Organization: NMSU Computer Science
	<1992Aug18.005905.9535@uoft02.utoledo.edu>
	<1992Aug26.044848.15372@midway.uchicago.edu>
	<1992Aug26.072834.13693@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu>
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 1992 23:06:57 GMT

<In article <1992Aug26.072834.13693@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> gprall@nyx.cs.du.edu (Gene Prall) writes:

<I know here in Georgia, If a man is burglarizing your home and he is within
<your 4 walls of your home you have every legal right to fill him full of lead

	Or use other means of "lethal force", which can include
	a baseball bat or even bare hands.

<But stupidly, you cannnot shoot them outside of your house if they
<are breaking in or climbing out...

	I cannot comment on the "breaking in" without more
	information.

	However, generally the law requires that civilians
	who defend themselves against attack (or who defend
	against felonies) cease defense once the attack or
	other crime stops; it is not unique to Georgia.

	Indeed, depending on the action taken, continuing
	to engage an attacker/felon after the attack/felony
	ceases could result in arrest.


Newsgroups: talk.rape
From: thf2@ellis.uchicago.edu (Ted Frank)
Subject: Re: Unnecessary hostility in talk.rape
Reply-To: thf2@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Date: Fri, 28 Aug 1992 22:39:51 GMT

In article <1992Aug27.095705.9728@uoft02.utoledo.edu> dcrosgr@uoft02.utoledo.edu writes:
>In article <14321@auspex-gw.auspex.com>, bae@Auspex.COM (Brian Ehrmantraut) writes:
>> 	Gee, DC, with the clues Andy provided, I managed to find the relevant
>> sections of California law, and it only took about five minutes.  I didn't
>> even have to leave my office.  Surely you, with all of your supposed legal
>> expertise, could do as well...
>> 
>> 	Then again, perhaps you simply don't know what you are talking about.
>
>	How do you know you found the same code Andy is referring to? The
>California statutes are divided up into multi-volume sets each dealing
>individual sub-sets of California law.
>
>	Did you correspond with him to verify this?

No, but he's corresponded with me.  We both found the same statute,
California Penal Code $12401 et seq.  
-- 
             ......................................................
             ted frank | thf2@midway.uchicago.edu | std disclaimers
             the university of chicago law skool, chicago, illinois
             it's log!  log!  log!  it's big, it's heavy, it's wood
Newsgroups: talk.rape
From: thf2@ellis.uchicago.edu (Ted Frank)
Subject: Re: Self-Defense in the Home
Reply-To: thf2@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 1992 23:35:09 GMT

In article <1992Aug26.113321.9702@uoft02.utoledo.edu> dcrosgr@uoft02.utoledo.edu writes:
>In article <1992Aug26.044848.15372@midway.uchicago.edu>, thf2@quads.uchicago.edu (Ted Frank) writes:
>> Can you tell us which state it is that does not permit the use of
>> deadly force to prevent the commission of a felony in your own home?
>
>The rule of thumb is that the farther west you go, the more they permit deadly
>force at the drop of a hat--except for CA.

Cute answer.  But not one that answers the question I asked.  Name the
state that wouldn't allow the use of deadly force in the hypothetical
you posed.
-- 
             ......................................................
             ted frank | thf2@midway.uchicago.edu | std disclaimers
             the university of chicago law skool, chicago, illinois
             it's log!  log!  log!  it's big, it's heavy, it's wood
Newsgroups: talk.rape
From: thf2@ellis.uchicago.edu (Ted Frank)
Subject: DC and evidence
Reply-To: thf2@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Date: Tue, 1 Sep 1992 00:54:08 GMT

In article <14397@auspex-gw.auspex.com> bae@Auspex.COM (Brian Ehrmantraut) writes:
>In article <1992Aug29.022738.9767@uoft02.utoledo.edu>, dcrosgr@uoft02.utoledo.edu writes:
>> Listen, I hate to burst your bubble, but in public debate
>> , you have to do more
>> than just say someone is wrong, you gotta show WHY they are wrong.
>> Do you have any refernces that show what I have claimed is wrong?
>
>	I don't have any "refernces", but I can certainly produce "references"
>that back up *my* claim (as have others...).  What do I have to do to satisfy 
>you, staple the transcript to your forehead?
>
>> Remember, in order to close a case where you are prosecuting someone, you got
>> to present SOME kind of evidence. Let's see it.
>
>	OK - I have presented my evidence that DC is wrong, as he has asked.
>I have given him all the leads he needs to verify this.  

I wonder why it is that only DC's opponents are required to produce evidence.
I have yet to see the boy back up a single one of his outrageous claims
with either statutory or case cites, yet he seems to require the proverbial
twenty bishops if anyone dares oppose him.  

(Actually, I haven't seen DC post at all since we gave him that statute...
 wonder why?  :-)
-- 
           .........................................................
          ted frank | thf2@midway.uchicago.edu | standard disclaimers
         the university of chicago law school, chicago, illinois 60637
         here i sit looking for a warming smile in a house of cold wit
From: bae@Auspex.COM (Brian Ehrmantraut)
Newsgroups: talk.rape
Subject: Re: Store bought brew
Date: 29 Aug 92 00:28:34 GMT

In article <1992Aug27.101540.9730@uoft02.utoledo.edu>, dcrosgr@uoft02.utoledo.edu writes:
> In article <14322@auspex-gw.auspex.com>, bae@Auspex.COM (Brian Ehrmantraut) writes:
> > 	Wrong.  I found it easily.  Surely you can as well...
> 
> IF an applicable one existed--surely I could. 

	It exists.  I have it on-line.  I, and others, have made offers to make
it available to (almost) anyone who asks.   Wake up.

> But Ataylor is no expert and he
> may have found some law against using poison in your garden for all we know.

	Note that your dispute on this point is with Andy Freeman, not with
Ataylor.  Is this an example of your usual attention to details?

> I do not believe there is a law which prohibits a woman from using a can of
> WD-40 for self-defense if she is being raped.

	That is not the original point of dispute, now is it?  We were 
discussing the consequences of carrying certain "weapons"...  

-- 
		Brian A. Ehrmantraut

BELL:   voice:(408) 492-0900  fax: (408) 492-0909  
USnail:	Auspex Systems, 2952 Bunker Hill Lane, Santa Clara, CA 95054
Newsgroups: talk.rape
Subject: Store bought brew
From: thf2@ellis.uchicago.edu (Ted Frank)
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 1992 14:30:52 GMT
Reply-To: thf2@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Supersedes: <1992Aug27.142412.25532@midway.uchicago.edu>

In article <1992Aug27.000407.9721@uoft02.utoledo.edu> dcrosgr@uoft02.utoledo.edu
 writes:
>In article <1992Aug26.200422.27773@CSD-NewsHost.Stanford.EDU>, andy@SAIL.Stanfo
rd.EDU (Andy Freeman) writes:
>> Other people have found the statute; they were interested in it and
>> the lack of a statute number was no obstacle to them.  DC either isn't
>> interested enough to look in the index or has some other problem.
>> Either way, that's his problem.  Pay me and I might care, but I don't
>> now.
>
>More lies Andy. I expected better from you. There is no statute which fits
>here.

Really?  Look up California's tear gas statute, which has the unusual effect
of making certain items even more likely to be illegal than tear gas.

Better check up on those research skills, Darr.  I found it in less than
fifteen minutes.  The statute's been used to convict people selling
capiscum, even though capiscum is a household substance with household
uses not specifically prohibited by the statute.  If you tried to peddle
WD-40 for self-defense, they'd get you just as surely.

>Liars usually don't. (At least that is what they claim. But for someone who
>does not care what I say, you DO spend a lot of time giving rebuttal. 'Me
>thinks he doth protest too much.'

You're quick to call names.  Does your blatant mistake regarding California
law make you a liar?

>> It is easy, but proving DC wrong to DC's satisfaction doesn't interest
>> me.  People who have bothered to use the information I've provided
>> know he's wrong; they're my intended audience and I don't care whether
>> or not he does.  If he wants me to, he's going about that a wrong way.
>
>OH! Now I see! You are writing for the benifit of those people who believe you.
>These people who you have corresponded with and you all secretly know I am
>wrong.

I haven't corresponded with Andy, but I haven't needed to.  It's not that
hard to find the section towards the end of California's Penal Code regarding
what is allowable for self-defense.  I see that others on the net haven't
had trouble finding it either.

My attitude's the same as Andy's.  I don't get paid to do your research for
you, Darrell.  If you're too lazy to do a "tear gas" and "self-defense"
search on CA-ST, that's your problem.
-- 
             ......................................................
             ted frank | thf2@midway.uchicago.edu | std disclaimers
             the university of chicago law skool, chicago, illinois
             it's log!  log!  log!  it's big, it's heavy, it's wood
From: dcrosgr@uoft02.utoledo.edu
Newsgroups: talk.rape
Subject: Re: Unnecessary hostility in talk.rape
Date: 28 Aug 92 11:39:15 EST
Organization: University of Toledo, Computer Services

In article <1992Aug27.215024.18041@CSD-NewsHost.Stanford.EDU>, andy@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (Andy Freeman) writes:
> In article <1992Aug26.235013.9720@uoft02.utoledo.edu> dcrosgr@uoft02.utoledo.edu writes:
>>I say you are making this 'code' up. I am stating that you either are:
>>
>>1. Not being honest.
>>2. Not being aware of what you 'alleged; code says or how it has been
>>interpreted.
> 
> Meanwhile, people who have looked for the section I'm referring to have
> found it, and found that I accurately interpreted it.
> 
>>You think that makes life difficult for me?
> 
> Something makes life difficult for DC.  He keeps demanding a complete
> cite, so I've assumed that the lack of cite is a problem for him.  It
> doesn't seem to be for anyone else.
> 
> Review: I say that CA law prohibits carrying WD-40 as a self-defense
> against people weapon, even though using it as such isn't prohibitted.
> 
> DC disagrees and asserts that no such statute exists, even though
> everyone who's mentioned looking for it has found it.  (One person
> even provided appropriate search keys for some legal database system.)
> 

It simply boils down to the fact that the minute YOU commit to a statute,
I will come in and show it does not apply to our little debate. You claim it
does, but are unwilling to offer it up to scrutiny.

You do not make life difficult for me, you merely demonstrate you fear exactly
what I am going to do when you've commited yourself to--which IS
understandable, since everytime in the past you've dreged up something as
"proving" you assertion, you've gone down in flames.

Hell, if anyone had hammered me as systematicly as I've demolished your
'arguments', I'd be afraid of them also.

Now, a call has gone out to me to be more civil, to be kinder to those people
who do not have my ability to debate, so here is a special gift to all of those
people who are too afraid to post this magical cite--I hereby stipulate that it
does exist.

There, now you no longer have any reason to not post it. This is talk.rape
boys. We are all, EACH of us, supposed to contribute what we can. We have seen
posts by those who do not contribute that they do read even while not posting.
Some of them may not be able to find this enchanted statute you have located.
Why don't you post it for their benifit?

DC

PS. After all, you have nothing to fear any more--unless, of course, you are
wrong.

God, I LOVE doing this to blowhards!
From: dan@cubmol.bio.columbia.edu (Daniel Zabetakis)
Newsgroups: talk.rape
Subject: Re: hostility in talk.rape (and in general)
Date: 27 Aug 92 15:23:16 GMT
Organization: Columbia University, Dept. of Biological Sciences.

In article <1992Aug26.205839.23307@news.nd.edu> slarsen@monet.helios.nd.edu (susan larsen) writes:
>In article <1992Aug26.183931.25726@news.columbia.edu> dan@cubmol.bio.columbia.edu (Daniel Zabetakis) writes:
>>
>Ah, but is the purpose of posting to get responses or to get them read?
>I post in the hopes that someone reads it and gets something out of it.
>I read in the hopes that I will learn something or gain insight from 
>another's experiences.
>
   Rape is like war. Those who talk about it feel the obligation (as they
should) to explain how they feel it can be stopped or reduced. Like war,
people vigorously disagree. Further (also like war), people feel that other
ideas expressed will actually exacerbate the problem. Noty only do people
disagree on a solution, but they think others' solutions will actually make the
problem worse.
   I think this is pretty much why we have flame wars in this group.

>I personally find posts that feature >A >>B >>>C >>>>A >>>>>B in the 
>opening to be the most unreadable of posts.  A B and C may feel that 

   I agree. In fact, I never read an article that doesn't have original text
on the first screenfull. Part of the problem people have with DC is that he
doesn't mind these types of articles.

DanZ


-- 
This article is for entertainment purposes only. Any facts, opinions,
narratives or ideas contained herein are not necessarily true, and do
not necessarily represent the views of any particular person.  
Newsgroups: talk.rape,soc.women
From: uchpcjv@Msu.oscs.montana.edu
Newsgroups: talk.rape
Subject: Re: Self-Defense in the Home
Date: 27 Aug 92 00:05:37 GMT
Reply-To: uchpcjv@Msu.oscs.montana.edu
Organization: Montana State University





>
Here in Montana, as in GA, we have the right to put them on ice if they're
within our four walls.  It gives me a warm fuzzy knowing that I can off a
burgler with any weapon I choose, as long as he's in the house.