Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Tue, 25 Aug 1992 15:37:17 -0400
From:         "Robert sprg0002@tulsajc.bitnet" <SPRG0002@TULSAJC.BITNET>

 *** Resending note of 08/25/92 14:00

 > >From Jamie
 > >My impression is that you may legally use deadly force to
 > >protect your person, but not your property. So you may
 > >shoot someone to protect yourself against rape, if that's
 > >your only defense, but not to protect your carpet.

 > 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.

 > >So Robert agrees with Carl that to qualify as a user of deadly force,
 > >you have to be a homeowner. Maybe if you own a really big home you
 > >should be allowed to use deadly force indiscriminately! Ross Perot
 > >is allowed to use molotov cocktails. Donald Trump we're not sure
 > >about.

 I would think the term *homeowner* could be construed to mean resident.
 But, I'm sure you'll find a syntactical problem with this too rather than
 admitting the merit of the intent of the law.

 > >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.

 > If I an awakened in the middle of the night by an intruder, I will not ask
 > that he fill out a form describing his reasons for being in my home.  I will
 > not wait while he partakes of my wife or 8 year old daughter.  When he violat
 > the sanctity of my home, he left his rights outside.

 > >Let's see. Why is it that we are supposed to be interested in what
 > >Robert would do if someone entered his house in the middle of the
 > >night?

 I thought you might need to know.

 > >Are we supposed to infer another one of Robert's Rules? "If I
 > >would do it in the middle of the night, then it must be all right."
 > >For the sake of you tender readers, I won't speculate on what
 > >might follow (via modus ponens, plus universal instantiation, Evelyn)
 from this newest rule.

 Work this out with KAT.  There can only be one Moses.

 >I have no difficulty
 > justifying my use of deadly force.

 > >If you have no difficulty, let's see a justification. Sheesh.

 I already did.  By the way, my name isn't Sheesh.

 > Someone mentioned a person being sued by a wounded (surviving) criminal.  All
 > I can say is, BAD SHOT(s).

 > > Ah. And now Robert's views begin to seep through the cracks....

 You mean the ones in your head or the ones in your arguments?

 > >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.

 > >I guess I'm glad Robert doesn't make our laws.

 > >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.

 ---Robert
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU