Tabby-Cat, et al, this guy doesn’t want to see the truth, telling him again and again won’t work.
He’s the worst kind of cherrypicker: He reads five words and then doesn’t bother with the rest of the page. Or he blanks out the first half of a sentence and picks a word or two out of the mix that seems to support him.
Again,
To prevent an illegal attempt by force To prevent an illegal attempt by force To prevent an illegal attempt by force To prevent an illegal attempt by force To prevent an illegal attempt by force
Are you somehow NOT reading that Sevastapol?
To prevent an attempt by FORCE!!!
FORCE.
Are you arguing that a pregnant woman and her toddlers used FORCE to steal from the Palestinians?
And your own cites have said that the reply has to be in kind and be necessary and not excessive.
To prevent an offense against his person, or his family, or
some member thereof.
To prevent an offense against his person, or his family, or
some member thereof.
To prevent an offense against his person, or his family, or
some member thereof.
To prevent an offense against his person, or his family, or
some member thereof.
Not “To prevent an offense against his house, his toaster, or his vehicle”. His PERSON. HIS FAMILY. OR MEMBER THEREOF. A Person, Sevasto-Zero. A Person, Sevasto-Zero. A Person, Sevasto-Zero. Not a piece of property!!!
Are you being obtuse, or are you just fucking retarded?
Why would you rely on something that hardly supports your claim?
Keywords here, oh legal language impaired one, are “sufficient to prevent the offense”.
I.E.
1- a pregnant woman driving along with 4 fucking kids minding her own business isn’t offending
and
2- to kill someone for taking your newspaper would be considered excessive and still wind your ass up in jail for life.
If I walk up to you with a wiffle-ball bat and tell you to give me your wallet and you pull out a piece and cap me, you’re going to jail for murder.
If I punch you in the eye and tell you to give me your wallet and you pull out a piece and cap me, you’re going to jail.
If I pull out a gun and tell you to give me your wallet and you pull out a gun and cap me, you might not go to jail.
Excessive use of force, even while defending yourself, and even if in fear for your life will not get you off with a clear-cut self defense plea. You might get some small time, or you might even get a good jury in trial and get off. But it’s certainly not a given.
Now, for those who aren’t developmentally disabled, this should be clear. Pull out any piece of the California Criminal code on this subject and you’ll still be disingenuously trying to pull a fast one on us.
Something occured to me a few hours ago that will determine your sanity.
When you think of these fucking hair-brained schemes to try and persuade us that you’re right somehow, do you look at the code and say to yourself “HA! I got those fuckers now! I’ll prove to them that I’m right once and for all!”[cue evil Muahaha laugh]
Or do you say to yourself, “gee, that’s a reach, but I bet I can pull it over on them”.
If the former, then you’re undoubtedly the biggest fucking fruit on the planet. If the latter, then you might be considered sane, though in a nutso-batshit-obsessively crazy-lying-ass-motherfucker kinda way.
The sole purpose of posting California Law *et al *was to refute the argument that there was no right to use lethal force to defend property. No other reason.
QED
It’s times like this I’m glad there is no editing of past posts, go see.
Given that right: There is the question of how it should apply in occupied Palestine. It is a seperate argument. It doesn’t do to confuse to two.
Kill for property, I dare you. Let’s do it as a case study. THere has been more than enough case law written time and again that proves that killing in defense of property is not legal. I know you’re trying to interpret laws to better your position. The problem is that you’re doing a bad job of it.
Please read my last post over carefully. Look at your options to the 3 situations, they will all lead you to a cell.
First off. confuse the two??? You’re claiming that it was okay to MURDER a woman and her children because of your claims of legalized-murder-in-defense-of-property.
Seems to me as if you’ve made the two equal, to try and back away now is not worthy of you.
Again, I’ve seen some cites saying you can defend property from theft via FORCE.
As in, someone punches you and tries you take your wallet, you can tussle with him. Not, you drop your wallet and someone picks it up, and then you shoot them in the back of the head.
I’ve also seen doctrines claiming that the force you use must not be excessive and must be necessary in the circumstances. In other words, this means that doing serious bodily harm when your life was not in danger is a felony.
I’ve seen cites saying it’s your legal duty to ** retreat, run away** rather than use lethal force, the only exception to that being if you’re already in your own home. As in, IN your home, not in your native country, but in a building known as a ‘house’ an ‘apartment’ a ‘domicile’. For the reading impaired, the Israeli settlements are certainly NOT Palestinian HOUSES.
I’ve seen cites saying that you can respond with force to stop a theft if FORCE is being used to commit that theft. I saw nothing that said you can hunt down the person who stole your toaster over last week and shoot him.
That, bucko, is known as premeditated murder.
In short, I’ve seen nothing that says you can use lethal force in defense of property and a hell of a lot that contradicts YOUR claim that a mother and her four children were the legal victims of ‘summary execution’ for their “crime” of theft of property.
P.S. You never did explain why the woman and her four children were engaged in theft via FORCE.
P.P.S. You have yet to explain why Palestinians can summarily execute Israelis caught on land they claim but America isn’t justified in summarily executing any illegal Mexican immigrants who are caught or for that matter, why the Native Americans aren’t within their rights to murder every man, woman, and child living in the United States. Extend your logic and look at its implications.
And by the way.
Your conduct in this thread has been truly abhorrent. When asked to qualify the logic behind your points, you called me dishonest and incoherent. When told (the truth) that murder in defense of property isn’t legal, you called Gum a liar too. When Tabby went over the law with you, you again flail about and
This seems to be your pattern. Someone points out the law to you and how you are purposefully mis-interpreting it and you call them a liar. This is the debating tactic of a fool and a coward, and you’re making yourself look very bad.
Finally, since I am quite obviously being rational, factual, and staying on point, you just look like a punk ass chump by ignoring my posts.
Apparently, you have the right up to and including the use of deadly force in protection of your property in Texas (My bad). Anywhere else, no. And Texas + Colorado != “Many circumstances”, “Usual in countries governed by law”.
Where it states reasonable force to prevent theft of property:
which should be the same in the US, except I can’t find an internet cite. shrug
Apparently, Texas disagrees, and explicitly states deadly force in their penal code. So I guess you’re right, in Texas: If there is no better way to stop the criminal, deadly force is allowed. In Colorado , it’s stated that you have the right to absolute safety in your home, which probably leans towards protection of the body instead of property. But I’ll give you that, too.
Of course, that’s only Texas (and maybe Colorado), which traditionally have a spirit of vigilantism. If you want to argue that it’s a general defence “usual in countries governed by law”, go argue with them. Really, it seems I’m wasting my time. If you can’t be civil, then hey - have it your way.
It is the same in the US, except as noted, in Texas, where those morons can shoot at anything that moves if it so pleases them. Texas, being the exception, not the rule, should not enter into the argument of defense of property.