Religions > Atheism > Re: A serious discussion about the need for more gun control
| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"ProfessorGunz" |
| Date: |
08 Jan 2008 02:16:43 PM |
| Object: |
Re: A serious discussion about the need for more gun control |
John R. Carroll wrote:
Gunner Asch wrote:
On Mon, 07 Jan 2008 21:50:32 -0600, Free Lunch <lunch@nofreelunch.us>
wrote:
Do you have any suggestions as to what /does/ work?
The recidivism rate for those receiving the death penalty for
their
crimes is 0%.
Even if they never did it.
The evidence is clear that we convict people in capital cases who
were not guilty of the crime. I find it morally reprehensible that
there are Americans who are not shocked by that.
And how many of them have the death penalty applied? Provide cites
and footnotes to back up your claim.
Now if I put (2) 230gr Gold Dots into the heart of a criminal as he
attempts to rob me, are you claiming I terminated an innocent person?
No, but he'll be dead and you will be on your way to jail unless he was
armed and you can persuade the DA you reasonably feared for your life.
Something you well know.
--
Wrong. According to Article 9.31 of the Texas Penal Code, Robbery and
Aggravated Robbery are reasons why use of deadly force is presumed to be
reasonable. Others are Aggravated Kidnapping, Murder, Sxual Assault,
and Aggravated Sexual Assault.
.
|
|
| User: "Don Staples" |
|
| Title: Re: A serious discussion about the need for more gun control |
08 Jan 2008 02:28:18 PM |
|
|
"ProfessorGunz" <mready@austin.rr.com> wrote in message
news:4783da25$0$10966$4c368faf@roadrunner.com...
John R. Carroll wrote:
Gunner Asch wrote:
On Mon, 07 Jan 2008 21:50:32 -0600, Free Lunch <lunch@nofreelunch.us>
wrote:
Do you have any suggestions as to what /does/ work?
The recidivism rate for those receiving the death penalty for
their
crimes is 0%.
Even if they never did it.
The evidence is clear that we convict people in capital cases who
were not guilty of the crime. I find it morally reprehensible that
there are Americans who are not shocked by that.
And how many of them have the death penalty applied? Provide cites
and footnotes to back up your claim.
Now if I put (2) 230gr Gold Dots into the heart of a criminal as he
attempts to rob me, are you claiming I terminated an innocent person?
No, but he'll be dead and you will be on your way to jail unless he was
armed and you can persuade the DA you reasonably feared for your life.
Something you well know.
--
Wrong. According to Article 9.31 of the Texas Penal Code, Robbery and
Aggravated Robbery are reasons why use of deadly force is presumed to be
reasonable. Others are Aggravated Kidnapping, Murder, Sxual Assault, and
Aggravated Sexual Assault.
Nice edit, Article 9,31 pertains to force, not deadly force.
§ 9.31. SELF-DEFENSE. (a) Except as provided in
Subsection (b), a person is justified in using force against
another when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the
force is immediately necessary to protect the actor against the
other's use or attempted use of unlawful force. The actor's belief
that the force was immediately necessary as described by this
subsection is presumed to be reasonable if the actor:§ 9.32. DEADLY FORCE
IN DEFENSE OF PERSON. (a) A person
is justified in using deadly force against another:
(1) if the actor would be justified in using force
against the other under Section 9.31; and
(2) when and to the degree the actor reasonably
believes the deadly force is immediately necessary:
(A) to protect the actor against the other's use
or attempted use of unlawful deadly force; or
(B) to prevent the other's imminent commission of
aggravated kidnapping, murder, sexual assault, aggravated sexual
assault, robbery, or aggravated robbery.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bert Hyman" |
|
| Title: Re: A serious discussion about the need for more gun control |
08 Jan 2008 02:35:30 PM |
|
|
(Don Staples) wrote in
news:13o7n77karl099c@corp.supernews.com:
"ProfessorGunz" <mready@austin.rr.com> wrote in message
news:4783da25$0$10966$4c368faf@roadrunner.com...
John R. Carroll wrote:
Gunner Asch wrote:
On Mon, 07 Jan 2008 21:50:32 -0600, Free Lunch
<lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote:
Do you have any suggestions as to what /does/ work?
The recidivism rate for those receiving the death penalty
for
their
crimes is 0%.
Even if they never did it.
The evidence is clear that we convict people in capital
cases who were not guilty of the crime. I find it morally
reprehensible that there are Americans who are not shocked
by that.
And how many of them have the death penalty applied? Provide
cites and footnotes to back up your claim.
Now if I put (2) 230gr Gold Dots into the heart of a criminal
as he attempts to rob me, are you claiming I terminated an
innocent person?
No, but he'll be dead and you will be on your way to jail unless
he was armed and you can persuade the DA you reasonably feared for
your life. Something you well know.
--
Wrong. According to Article 9.31 of the Texas Penal Code, Robbery
and Aggravated Robbery are reasons why use of deadly force is
presumed to be reasonable. Others are Aggravated Kidnapping,
Murder, Sxual Assault, and Aggravated Sexual Assault.
Nice edit, Article 9,31 pertains to force, not deadly force.
Still, it looks like he got it right.
The conditions for use of force outlined in Section 9.31 plus the
conditions he mentioned, Robbery, Aggravated Robbery etc., are the
grounds for using deadly force described in section 9.32.
§ 9.31. SELF-DEFENSE. (a) Except as provided in
Subsection (b), a person is justified in using force against
another when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the
force is immediately necessary to protect the actor against the
other's use or attempted use of unlawful force. The actor's belief
that the force was immediately necessary as described by this
subsection is presumed to be reasonable if the actor:§ 9.32. DEADLY
FORCE IN DEFENSE OF PERSON. (a) A person
is justified in using deadly force against another:
(1) if the actor would be justified in using force
against the other under Section 9.31; and
(2) when and to the degree the actor reasonably
believes the deadly force is immediately necessary:
(A) to protect the actor against the other's use
or attempted use of unlawful deadly force; or
(B) to prevent the other's imminent commission of
aggravated kidnapping, murder, sexual assault, aggravated sexual
assault, robbery, or aggravated robbery.
--
Bert Hyman | St. Paul, MN |
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "ProfessorGunz" |
|
| Title: Re: A serious discussion about the need for more gun control |
09 Jan 2008 01:00:36 PM |
|
|
Don Staples wrote:
"ProfessorGunz" <mready@austin.rr.com> wrote in message
news:4783da25$0$10966$4c368faf@roadrunner.com...
John R. Carroll wrote:
Gunner Asch wrote:
On Mon, 07 Jan 2008 21:50:32 -0600, Free Lunch
<lunch@nofreelunch.us>
wrote:
Do you have any suggestions as to what /does/ work?
The recidivism rate for those receiving the death penalty for
their
crimes is 0%.
Even if they never did it.
The evidence is clear that we convict people in capital cases who
were not guilty of the crime. I find it morally reprehensible that
there are Americans who are not shocked by that.
And how many of them have the death penalty applied? Provide cites
and footnotes to back up your claim.
Now if I put (2) 230gr Gold Dots into the heart of a criminal as he
attempts to rob me, are you claiming I terminated an innocent
person?
No, but he'll be dead and you will be on your way to jail unless he was
armed and you can persuade the DA you reasonably feared for your life.
Something you well know.
--
Wrong. According to Article 9.31 of the Texas Penal Code, Robbery and
Aggravated Robbery are reasons why use of deadly force is presumed to
be reasonable. Others are Aggravated Kidnapping, Murder, Sxual
Assault, and Aggravated Sexual Assault.
Nice edit, Article 9,31 pertains to force, not deadly force.
§ 9.31. SELF-DEFENSE. (a) Except as provided in
Subsection (b), a person is justified in using force against
another when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the
force is immediately necessary to protect the actor against the
other's use or attempted use of unlawful force. The actor's belief
that the force was immediately necessary as described by this
subsection is presumed to be reasonable if the actor:§ 9.32. DEADLY
FORCE IN DEFENSE OF PERSON. (a) A person
is justified in using deadly force against another:
(1) if the actor would be justified in using force
against the other under Section 9.31; and
(2) when and to the degree the actor reasonably
believes the deadly force is immediately necessary:
(A) to protect the actor against the other's use
or attempted use of unlawful deadly force; or
(B) to prevent the other's imminent commission of
aggravated kidnapping, murder, sexual assault, aggravated sexual
assault, robbery, or aggravated robbery.
Mea culpa. 9.32, same comment.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
