# Palestinian scum **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [May 2, 2004, 9:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/palestinian-scum/243186 "2004-05-02T21:15:25Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 24
**Author:** ![Rune](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e68b1a/32.png) [@Rune](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rune)\ **Post date:** [May 10, 2004, 12:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/palestinian-scum/243186/461 "2004-05-10T12:07:32Z")
> [@sevastopol](#): > > Someone new fishing for an emotional response! Glad to oblige, the perverse, moral degeneracy you seek is found in those who elect to put civilians and children into the front line of an illegal occupation. The people who make that policy have accepted that some will die. > > It’s an act of evil genius to exploit the emotional responses of former lefties like **Rune**. That way, hard policy is disguised as compassion. > > Satisfied? “emotional response?” Not at all. A reasoned well thought out response more likely. A plain Yes or No would have sufficed even. That you choose to weave, circumvent and not address the question reveals to the world the sort of creature you really are; a man entertaining revolting ideas of acceptable forms of struggle but not quite with the stomach to face them or defend them. So I guess I’m satisfied that you clarified your position. And if you think that mother let herself and her children be murdered to further a political agenda you are so far removed from reality as to be quite beyond reach. ---
**Author:** ![Tabby\_Cat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/6a8cbe/32.png) [@Tabby\_Cat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tabby_Cat)\ **Post date:** [May 10, 2004, 1:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/palestinian-scum/243186/462 "2004-05-10T13:06:02Z")
> [@sevastopol](#): > > **Tabby-Cat,** you might like to think about these sentences for a bit. > > I’ve put the quote in a series of steps to help you re-consider the logical sequence you propose. > > Perhaps also read **Weirddave’s** post after the one where you first quote from \*R v Martin (Anthony) \*. **FinnAgain** made a pretty good attempt, but was off on a few points, so I shall elaborate again. …There is no defence of “defence of property” in homicide. (And in case you don’t believe me, I give the following example) That said, in the facts of the case, - you can clearly see that defence of property, - if it existed, - would have been made out on the facts. (If I was being charged for say, murder, and the facts of the case were that I was injected with a substance that caused me to act without thought, or if I were clinically depressed, you can be sure as hell that my lawyer would raise the defence of insanity, or automatism, as it would be obvious from the facts that I should use those defences) - It wasn’t. (Defence of property was not even mentioned) - And self defence didn’t work, either. (and even self defence, which WAS raised, didn’t work. And I’ll be damned if protecting your life is less important than protecting your property) - Ergo, your statement is proven false. (You know. Wrong.) ---
**Author:** ![The\_Flying\_Dutchman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/9fc348/32.png) [@The\_Flying\_Dutchman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Flying_Dutchman)\ **Post date:** [May 10, 2004, 1:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/palestinian-scum/243186/463 "2004-05-10T13:22:04Z")
**Rune** , post #459 impressed me. I’ll be paying particular attention to your future posts. carry on ---
**Author:** ![Sevastopol](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/cdc98d/32.png) [@Sevastopol](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sevastopol)\ **Post date:** [May 10, 2004, 1:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/palestinian-scum/243186/464 "2004-05-10T13:34:03Z")
> [@Rune](#): > > “emotional response?” Not at all. A reasoned well thought out response more likely. A plain Yes or No would have sufficed even. That you choose to weave, circumvent and not address the question reveals to the world the sort of creature you really are; a man entertaining revolting ideas of acceptable forms of struggle but not quite with the stomach to face them or defend them. So I guess I’m satisfied that you clarified your position. And if you think that mother let herself and her children be murdered to further a political agenda you are so far removed from reality as to be quite beyond reach. I only promised you one emotional response. > [@](#): > > Originally Posted by Rune > Talking of perverted moral degenerates. sevastapol… was meant to invite a “A reasoned well thought out response”? I don’t think so. Lie and I’ll stop reading you. So trying to pick holes in my emotional response as though it were my argument has got to stop. …but, dipping into rationality: _“let herself be murdered”_? T’weren’t she that made the policy. ---
**Author:** ![Sevastopol](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/cdc98d/32.png) [@Sevastopol](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sevastopol)\ **Post date:** [May 10, 2004, 1:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/palestinian-scum/243186/465 "2004-05-10T13:45:06Z")
> [@Tabby\_Cat](#): > > …There is no defence of “defence of property” in homicide. > > (And in case you don’t believe me, I give the following example) > > That said, in the facts of the case, > > - you can clearly see that defence of property, > - if it existed, > - would have been made out on the facts. > > (If I was being charged for say, murder, and the facts of the case were that I was injected with a substance that caused me to act without thought, or if I were clinically depressed, you can be sure as hell that my lawyer would raise the defence of insanity, or automatism, as it would be obvious from the facts that I should use those defences) > > - It wasn’t. > > (Defence of property was not even mentioned) > > - And self defence didn’t work, either. > > (and even self defence, which WAS raised, didn’t work. And I’ll be damned if protecting your life is less important than protecting your property) > > - Ergo, your statement is proven false. > > (You know. Wrong.) **Tabby-Cat** : First, returning to your earlier observation: It is too much to ask for a list of non-defences. True. Does this sound reasonable to you? Quote the defences to homicide where you are (the UK?) and we’ll see if defence of property is in there. This sounds a reasonable request to me. Last: are you _really_ sure you want to stand by _“There is no defence of “defence of property” in homicide.”_ I did suggest you re-read a post by **Weirddave** (hint: the parts I quoted, excluding the “castle thing”). Did you? This may be a sound time to revise your position. I have the phrase “vast gaping logical holes” in mind. ---
**Author:** ![Tabby\_Cat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/6a8cbe/32.png) [@Tabby\_Cat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tabby_Cat)\ **Post date:** [May 10, 2004, 3:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/palestinian-scum/243186/466 "2004-05-10T15:39:29Z")
> [@sevastopol](#): > > **Tabby-Cat** > : First, returning to your earlier observation: It is too much to ask for a list of non-defences. True. > > Does this sound reasonable to you? Quote the defences to homicide where you are (the UK?) and we’ll see if defence of property is in there. This sounds a reasonable request to me. > > Last: are you _really_ sure you want to stand by _“There is no defence of “defence of property” in homicide.”_ I did suggest you re-read a post by **Weirddave** (hint: the parts I quoted, excluding the “castle thing”). Did you? > > This may be a sound time to revise your position. I have the phrase “vast gaping logical holes” in mind. Okay, let’s have a little recap of the defences to homicide Automatism: You were not acting under your own power. For example, you get hit over the head which somehow causes you to have an uncontrollable urge to kill someone. Or if a swarm of bees gets in your face while you are driving and causes you to hit and kill someone. Insanity: You are labouring under a disease of the mind. “as to not know the nature or quality of the act he was doing, or if he knew it, that he did not know that it was wrong” Self Defence: You were acting in self defence, and used no more force than necessary to prevent the attack you were under. This is a question of fact, not law. I assume you mean > [@](#): > > Q. What if someone is attacking me in my own home? > A. The courts have created an exception to the duty to retreat called the “castle doctrine.” Under the castle doctrine, you need not retreat from your own home to avoid using deadly force against an assailant. This only applies when you are inside your home. Reasonable force is still required. See my case for a situation where excessive force was used, and therefore self defence not allowed. Also, nowhere does it say that it refers to a defence of property - you are only allowed to use deadly force when your life is threatened (see my case). The castle doctrine only allows you an exemption from the duty to retreat - if you are outside, and you are confronted by deadly force, it is your duty to retreat if possible. You are not allowed, if retreat is possible, to respond with deadly force, even if it is reasonable to do so. Don’t make me claim lawyer credentials. ---
**Author:** ![GaWd](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/f08c70/32.png) [@GaWd](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GaWd)\ **Post date:** [May 10, 2004, 4:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/palestinian-scum/243186/467 "2004-05-10T16:09:43Z")
Are we still arguing over defending your property and using force? Holy fucking shit Sevasto-zero, give it up. You can’t defend your food, your car, your watch, or your other personal effects with a murder. That’s just the way it is. Your supposition surrounding the “theft” of their land or their home is less than plausible anyways. It’s more thin than the gruel at the local homeless shelter. Even if I was living in a house in a settlement and it happened to be owned previously by a palestinian, he couldn’t come into the home and kill me for living there. It’s just not legal or defendable unless one of the 3 conditions are met per Tabby’s post above. You commie-types are hard-headed sons of bitches, I’ll give you that. Really though, let’s snap back to reality. Sam ---
**Author:** ![gum](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/bbe5ce/32.png) [@gum](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/gum)\ **Post date:** [May 11, 2004, 4:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/palestinian-scum/243186/468 "2004-05-11T04:31:10Z")
**Rune** , Your post #459 impressed me too. Very much so. Badshah Khan must have been a special man. Much more likely to sympathize with than a couple of murderers. Thank you for the links. I found another of his quotes: \*“Today’s world is traveling in some strange direction. You see that the world is going toward destruction and violence. And the specialty of violence is to create hatred among people and to create fear. I am a believer in nonviolence and I say that no peace or tranquility will descend upon the people of the world until nonviolence is practiced, because nonviolence is love and it stirs courage in people.” – Khan Abdul Ghaffar Khan to an interviewer in 1985 \* It’s a pity he isn’t alive anymore. He might have been a great example for the Palestines too. hehehe. The Danes are one of my favorite people too. AND they have a government that listen to its people. I’ve been to Copenhagen and to Legoland and my brother dated a lovely girl called Mette Rasmussen. Yes, judging by your posts, we’re alike. There was a thread some weeks ago about whom of the Dopers you felt related to. I said no-one, but that has changed. Next time when you’re in A’dam, the drinks - or whatever - are on me. ---
**Author:** ![Sevastopol](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/cdc98d/32.png) [@Sevastopol](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sevastopol)\ **Post date:** [May 11, 2004, 5:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/palestinian-scum/243186/469 "2004-05-11T05:59:21Z")
> [@Weirddave](#): > > Q. When can I use my handgun to protect myself? > A. Florida law justifies use of deadly force when you are: > > … > > Trying to prevent a forcible felony, such as … robbery, burglary … > [@](#): > > California Penal Code > [http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cacodes/pen/692-694.html](http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cacodes/pen/692-694.html) > > 1. Resistance sufficient to prevent the offense may be made by > the party about to be injured: > 2. To prevent an offense against his person, or his family, or > some member thereof. > 3. To prevent an illegal attempt by force to take or injure > property in his lawful possession. For our Commonwealth cousins: > [@](#): > > \ ***Self-Defence** > > It has long been recognised in the common law that a person is justified in > using some force in legitimate self-defence. To act in self-defence is to act lawfully, and thus it is a complete “defence” to criminal liability - with the > onus falling on the prosecution to negative self-defence. As with all > “self-help” defences, however the use of force is subject to two limitations: > (1) that the use of force is necessary in the circumstances, and (2) that the amount of force used is not excessive in the circumstances. Although the defence is ancient, the nature and application of these limitations is still controversial and unsettled. > > The principles of self-defence also extend to the defence of other persons, > the defence of property, the prevention of a serious crime (felony), and > effecting a lawful arrest.\* > > Criminal Laws: Brown, Neal, Farrier, Weisbrot ---
**Author:** ![FinnAgain](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/finnagain/32/12500_2.png) [@FinnAgain](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FinnAgain)\ **Post date:** [May 11, 2004, 6:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/palestinian-scum/243186/470 "2004-05-11T06:51:14Z")
Feel free to ignore this. > [@Sevastapol](#): > > > [@weirddave](#): > > > > Q. When can I use my handgun to protect myself? > > A. Florida law justifies use of deadly force when you are: > > Trying to prevent a forcible felony, such as … robbery, burglary … Perhaps you didn’t follow **Sevastapol** , either that or you’re ignoring one key word **forcible**. Explain how this pregnant woman and her children were engaged in a forcible felony such as robbery, burglary… ? Maybe this pregnant woman, with kids in tow, kicked in the door to some poor defenseless Palestinian couple’s home and they were then compelled to chase her back to Israel and shoot her and her children at point blank range… Do you see any other reason she, herself personally, was engaged in a violent action? Good conclusion? Lots of data to suport it? > [@](#): > > California Penal Code > [http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cacodes/pen/692-694.html](http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cacodes/pen/692-694.html) > > 1. Resistance sufficient to prevent the offense may be made by > the party about to be injured: > 2. To prevent an offense against his person, or his family, or > some member thereof. > 3. To prevent an illegal attempt by force to take or injure > property in his lawful possession. Again, are you ignoring this phrase or not seeing it? “Any attempt **by force** …” I will ask again 1. _How was this woman and especially her young children engaged in theft via force? Not some machiavellian Israeli plot, but how were those human beings guilty?_ 2. - You are, still, claiming that any nation has the right to murder, without trial, those who are engaged in taking their land. Does this apply to the United States and Mexico? Why or why not? Extend your logic to its conclusion please. (or your emotion to its ramification if you’d prefer)\* > [@](#): > > Self-Defence > > It has long been recognised in the common law that a person is justified in > using some force in legitimate self-defence. To act in self-defence is to act lawfully, and thus it is a complete “defence” to criminal liability - with the > onus falling on the prosecution to negative self-defence. As with all > “self-help” defences, however the use of force is subject to two limitations: > (1) that the use of force is necessary in the circumstances, and (2) that the amount of force used is not excessive in the circumstances. Although the defence is ancient, the nature and application of these limitations is still controversial and unsettled. > > The principles of self-defence also extend to the defence of other persons, > the defence of property, the prevention of a serious crime (felony), and > effecting a lawful arrest. You are again ignoring. You have the right to DEFEND your property. You do not have the right to MURDER for your property. “(1) that the use of force is necessary in the circumstances” “(2) that the amount of force used is not excessive in the circumstances.” Again, the question: How on earth can you say that blowing away a pregnant mother and her children, looking into their eyes, seeing their young faces filled with terror and spattered with gore… filling kids’ bodies with bullets… that that is somehow _ **necessary and not excessive** _??? This was a pregnant mother and her children, for the love of all that’s sacred! If you’re playing devil’s advocate you’ve picked an issue that makes you look callous and monstrous. If you’re serious, you attach way too much value to property and a hell of a lot less to human life. ---
**Author:** ![Testy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/c37758/32.png) [@Testy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Testy)\ **Post date:** [May 11, 2004, 7:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/palestinian-scum/243186/471 "2004-05-11T07:46:05Z")
You’re making a good try but it isn’t going to work. The Palestinians could slaughter a pre-school class and _eat_ them and people would trot out the same old tired arguments about how they had been forced into it by the evil zionist conspiracy. Logic and common sense have nothing to do with the matter. Regards Testy ---
**Author:** ![Tabby\_Cat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/6a8cbe/32.png) [@Tabby\_Cat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tabby_Cat)\ **Post date:** [May 11, 2004, 9:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/palestinian-scum/243186/472 "2004-05-11T09:59:58Z")
sevastopol: Don’t quote out of context. > [@wierdave](#): > > Q. What if someone uses threatening language to me so that I am afraid for my life or safety? > A. Verbal threats are not enough to justify the use of deadly force. There must be an overt act by the person which indicates that he immediately intends to carry out the threat. The person threatened must reasonably believe that **he will be killed or suffer serious bodily harm** [sup]\*[/sup] if he does not immediately take the life of his adversary. > > Q. Can’t I protect myself if someone starts hitting me? > A. Even if someone starts a fight with you, you must make every reasonable effort consistent with your own safety to avoid the use of deadly force, including retreating from someone attacking you. \*: Not “his property will be taken”. If you’re going to quote it, quote all relevant bits. ---
**Author:** ![GaWd](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/f08c70/32.png) [@GaWd](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GaWd)\ **Post date:** [May 11, 2004, 1:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/palestinian-scum/243186/473 "2004-05-11T13:47:08Z")
> [@Tabby\_Cat](#): > > sevastopol: Don’t quote out of context. > > \*: Not “his property will be taken”. > > If you’re going to quote it, quote all relevant bits. Not another commie cherrypicker… Why so disingenuous, Sevastopol? Why can’t you just concede that to commit murder legally, or in self defense, there MUST be the potential for you to be murdered? It’s a very simple equation- Crazy man using banana to hit me on head. Can I kill him in self defense for attacking me with a banana? No. Crazy man using baseball bat to beat the fuck out of me. Can I kill him in self defense for attacking me with a blunt object? Probably yes. So you’re either, blind, dumb, ignorant, or simply determined to win no matter how. Sam ---
**Author:** ![Sevastopol](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/cdc98d/32.png) [@Sevastopol](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sevastopol)\ **Post date:** [May 11, 2004, 2:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/palestinian-scum/243186/474 "2004-05-11T14:17:05Z")
> [@Tabby\_Cat](#): > > sevastopol: Don’t quote out of context. > > If you’re going to quote it, quote all relevant bits. Hooey. You tried to bluff me and got rumbled, still hurting I guess. Time for you to fold. **GaWd** wrote: > [@](#): > > Why can’t you just concede that to commit murder legally, or in self defense, there MUST be the potential for you to be murdered? Because it isn’t true. It’s right there in b & w. Read it again. A few times. You’ll get it. Eventually. For some reason I’ve taken a shine to you. Maybe it’s the “hard-headed” compliment. If you _really_ cannot see it I’ll explain. Don’t bother me if you just want to be difficult. ---
**Author:** ![Tabby\_Cat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/6a8cbe/32.png) [@Tabby\_Cat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tabby_Cat)\ **Post date:** [May 11, 2004, 2:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/palestinian-scum/243186/475 "2004-05-11T14:40:28Z")
> [@sevastopol](#): > > Hooey. You tried to bluff me and got rumbled, still hurting I guess. Time for you to fold. Tell me, do you have any legal experience? At all? You know, like a legal degree, and numerous law textbooks lying around, like I do? No? > [@wierdave](#): > > Q. What if someone uses threatening language to me so that I am afraid for my life or safety? > A. Verbal threats are not enough to justify the use of deadly force. There must be an overt act by the person which indicates that he immediately intends to carry out the threat. The person threatened must reasonably believe that he will be killed or suffer serious bodily harm if he does not immediately take the life of his adversary. In plain English. Read the FUCKING QUOTE. ---
**Author:** ![GaWd](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/f08c70/32.png) [@GaWd](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GaWd)\ **Post date:** [May 11, 2004, 2:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/palestinian-scum/243186/476 "2004-05-11T14:44:14Z")
> [@sevastopol](#): > > Because it isn’t true. It’s right there in b & w. Read it again. A few times. You’ll get it. Eventually. > > For some reason I’ve taken a shine to you. Maybe it’s the “hard-headed” compliment. If you _really_ cannot see it I’ll explain. Don’t bother me if you just want to be difficult. I’m not being difficult. This is the law. THe potential for death, or the fear that a specific person will kill you is required to claim self defense. Period. I will repeat Tabby’s question to you: > [@](#): > > Tell me, do you have any legal experience? At all? You know, like a legal degree, and numerous law textbooks lying around, like I do? No? IANAL, but I work in the industry and know a touch about it all. Sam ---
**Author:** ![Tabby\_Cat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/6a8cbe/32.png) [@Tabby\_Cat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tabby_Cat)\ **Post date:** [May 11, 2004, 3:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/palestinian-scum/243186/477 "2004-05-11T15:32:26Z")
> **[Find Laws, Legal Information, and Attorneys - FindLaw](https://www.findlaw.com/)** > > Find trusted, free legal information, news, DIY forms and access to local lawyers at FindLaw.com. > [@](#): > > Generally speaking, an owner of property may not use deadly force to defend the property. Society views the value of human life and bodily integrity to be much higher than the value of property. Therefore, the life, health, and safety of an individual, even an intruder, is considered to be more valuable than the china or stereo that the individual is trying to steal. [May an owner of property use deadly force to defend their property?](http://cobrands.business.findlaw.com/business_commercial/legal/source/faqs/faq367.html) As clear as it gets. ---
**Author:** ![FinnAgain](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/finnagain/32/12500_2.png) [@FinnAgain](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FinnAgain)\ **Post date:** [May 11, 2004, 3:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/palestinian-scum/243186/478 "2004-05-11T15:52:35Z")
**Tabby\_Cat** … B… bu… but but but!!! Then how can we gun down women and children and claim that it is simply some good ol’ summary executions? And how can we then come back to this thread and be smarmy, without the ability to read, and then call everybody else names and be a general brat? I mean, man… are we honestly going to be forced to admit that anybody who seeks out a pregnant mother and her kids in order to get some killin’ done… are we honestly going to be forced to admit that murdering babies is bad? Say it aint so! Maybe if we purposefully mis-read a few more legal tracts it’ll be ok to murder babies? Come on man, I’ve really got my heart set on this whole ‘it’s cool to murder babies” thing. Maybe **Sevastapol** will finish this up for me, I’m sure he can back up his claim that the law says in black and white that you can use deadly force to protect your toaster. Toasters are important. ---
**Author:** ![Sevastopol](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/cdc98d/32.png) [@Sevastopol](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sevastopol)\ **Post date:** [May 12, 2004, 12:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/palestinian-scum/243186/479 "2004-05-12T00:05:51Z")
I’m not prepared to give **Tabby-Cat** , the benefit of any further doubt. His/Her errors are too many for an honest person and too unrepentant. There is some other interest motivating him/her. Being fair, I’ll dispose of the latest objections before concluding discussion with **Tabby-Cat**. **TC** wrote > [@](#): > > Verbal threats are not enough to justify the use of deadly force. There must be an overt act by the person which indicates that > he immediately intends to carry out the threat. The person threatened must reasonably believe that he will be killed or suffer serious bodily harm if he > does not immediately take the life of his adversary. I know what it says. What I don’t see is how it constitutes relevant context that I omitted in discussing:. > [@](#): > > Q. When can I use my handgun to protect myself? > A. Florida law justifies use of deadly force when you are: > > … > > Trying to prevent a forcible felony, such as … robbery, burglary … which is about forcible felonies. Verbal threats. Forcible felonies. Spot the difference. **TC** wrote > [@](#): > > Generally speaking, an owner of property may not use deadly force to defend the property Firstly, this isn’t from any sort of authority. “Generally Speaking”. Means what it says. It allows that there are uncommon exceptions. There’s no contradiction with my position. **GaWD** wrote > [@](#): > > This is the law. THe potential for death, or the fear that a specific person will kill you is required to claim self defense. Period. When you state the law you state the authority for it. All I can do to convice **GaWD** his/her opinion of the law is wrong, is to present the law in b&w right in front and offer to explain it. Here it is again. > [@](#): > > California Penal Code > [http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cacodes/pen/692-694.html](http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cacodes/pen/692-694.html) > > 1. Resistance sufficient to prevent the offense may be made by > the party about to be injured: > 2. To prevent an offense against his person, or his family, or > some member thereof. > 3. To prevent an illegal attempt by force to take or injure > property in his lawful possession. Take it or leave it. ---
**Author:** ![Tabby\_Cat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/6a8cbe/32.png) [@Tabby\_Cat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tabby_Cat)\ **Post date:** [May 12, 2004, 1:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/palestinian-scum/243186/480 "2004-05-12T01:06:00Z")
Fair enough, you don’t like my cite. Let’s try another one [Department of Justice, Canada](http://canada.justice.gc.ca/en/cons/rccd/section1p3.html) > [@](#): > > Use of deadly force > > Any struggle between a possessor and a potential taker of property can lead to violence, and a threat to property may turn into a threat to human life or safety. Where the possessor’s physical safety is threatened, the law of self-defence may be invoked to justify the use of force against the taker or trespasser’s attack, even intentional deadly force in appropriate circumstances. Where there is a threat to property but no clear threat to a person’s safety, though, it may be more difficult to assess when, if ever, deadly force should be justified. > > The current law places no upper limit on the extent of force that may be used. Most sections of the current scheme implicitly allow the use of deadly force (except section 38, which prohibits causing injury) by authorizing as much force as is necessary to defend possession. Nonetheless, several courts have stated as a general principle that intentional deadly force can never be justified in defence of property alone, and that human life and safety should always take priority over property interests. Some commentators maintain that this principle should be stated clearly in the Criminal Code. I don’t know how to make it clearer short of telling you to go out and buy a textbook. If you can find a single case where it was found reasonable to use deadly force in defence of property (which none of my lecturers ever told me about, and do not exist in any of the cases in my casebook), feel free. Hell, I’ll start a [GQ](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=255735) for you. You don’t wanna believe me - fine, maybe you’ll believe the other established lawyers, such as **Bricker**. Yeah, I suppose it’s reasonable - you only know my screen name, and my post count is pretty low. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/palestinian-scum/243186.md?page=23) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/palestinian-scum/243186.md?page=25)