A question of self-defence - Fire extinguishers & self defence

[Sandy Sandfort]

Not-a-lawyer wrote:

> Sorry, no backpedaling here...
> I stand behind my previous
> statements on this topic.

Good idea.  If you were to stand in front of it, you'd probably lose the
other eye.

> We're not talking about
> 'self-defence' here...

No, we're talking 'self-defense', this is the US, not the UK.

> ...we're talking 'deadly force'.
> Not 1-to-1. Nice strawman though.

Jimbo, you ignorant slut, do you even know what a "straw man" argument is?
DEADLY FORCE may be used in SELF-DEFENSE when one is in reasonable fear of
death or great bodily harm.  That's black-letter law.  (There are some
refinements, such as "to oneself or another," but they are not germane to
the instant hypothetical of someone trying to bash you with a fire
extinguisher through your car window.)

> Couldn't pay me to be a lawyer.

Don't know about 'couldn't, but I certainly wouldn't.  Your verbal reasoning
skills suck.

> I do know what sort of law I want
> my country to have and...

"...don't confuse me with the fact"?

> I've really got better things to
> do with my time than some silly
> elementary school bully schtick
> you're emotionally attached to.

Yeah, we can see that by the quantity and quality of your posts.  God, what
a chicken shit way to turn tail.  You've got all kinds of monetary offers to
take the LSAT and you wimp out.

> If you'll pay the bill and
> somebody can identify the weight
> of the extinguisher and the model
> of the car...

Cluck, cluck, cluck.  The victim in the car doesn't get to know what sort of
extinguisher the rioter will use.

After take a long paragraph to blame the victim Jimbo asserts:

> A broken arm or hand is not 'great
> bodily harm' by any definition
> (except a self-serving one perhaps).

Actually, it would fall under the definition of "great bodily harm," whether
you think so or not.  This is not a self-serving definition, you idiot, just
a legal one that you happen to disagree with.

> Amateurs with no experience around
> those sorts of environments really
> should keep their mouths shut about
> how that stuff works.

Yup Jimbo, you're right about that.

> No, the cops panicked...

You really should become a lawyer or even a judge.  You seem to already have
figured this one out by ESP or something.  Wow, I'm fucking impressed with
your legal acumen.

> And then there is the point that
> at no time is the police officer
> relieved of their sworn duty to
> protect the citizens, including
> the rioters.

Is THAT what cops swear to?  I'd like to see a citation on that piece of
bullshit.  There is established case law in the US that says the police have
no specific duty to protect anyone.

> Self-defence is NOT a sufficient
> release (there is a term for this
> policy but it escapes me, I know
> where to find it though and I'll
> share it tomorrow).

How convenient.  Now don't you forget to "share" that with us tomorrow
Little Jimmie.

> This is a perfect example of why
> the standard police psych
> requirement of 'likes to be in
> charge'...

Did you pull that out of your ass or someone else's?

> A police officers primary
> responsiblity is not to save
> their own life but to spend
> it to save another.

This guy is a laugh riot.  Where does he dig this stuff up?  What a moron.


 S a n d y