Do You Carry A Gun? - Page 46 - U.S. Politics Online: A Political Discussion Forum

Steve · #**676** (**permalink**) 11-04-2007

Quote:

Originally Posted by mawg

son , I was working or hunting the day you were born.

Mawg, I think you'll soon learn that actual life experience means nothing to some people here...

pramjockey · #**677** (**permalink**) 11-04-2007

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steve

None of that concludes someone who's spit upon shouldn't expect a further assault. Self defense is warranted...

Ah, Steve, but the standard is "reasonable." Does a reasonable person kick in the teeth of a spitter? I'd hazard a guess that most juries would say "no."

And, yeah, there may be some backwoods inbred Barney Fife motherfuckers who think they're above the law, but that's a whole different story.

Oh, and experience is fine, when it's relevant. Note who's accusing the other of being 14.

Wallaroo · #**678** (**permalink**) 11-04-2007

Quote:

Originally Posted by mawg

son , I was working or hunting the day you were born.
I am not going to cite local law here so idiots like you know where exactly I am,
frankly because we have enough pansy assed , think they know it all ,punks who come here from other places to run off or educate already and having you or someone else like you here is pollution of the countryside .

the simple fact is , I enforce the law here and as such I am telling you that this specifically is what we in our departments ( city and county ) will do in the case of an asinine punk spitting on another person

1) we will not arrest the person who was spit on , if they beat the shit out of the spitter

2) we WILL arrest the person who spit on another if the person who was spit on doesnt beat them up and instead wants us to arrest them.

my comment before which you took to be internet badass speak simply used myself as an example
here is a more neutral one

if you come here and spit on a person and they want I WILL place you under arrest and you will be held for a physical attack / assault

if you come here and spit on someone and they kick your ass, I WILL NOT arrest them if you come whining about having your ass kicked , at the most I will issue them a summons to come to the county courthouse where the local judge will not find them guilty of any crime and lecture you on your bad behavior.

What I dont understand is why self defence rights (or the interpretation of them) varies so much from area to area within the different states? I find that to be absolutely ridiculous, and it doesnt belong here in the 21th century. Each state should have exactly the same self defence laws and interpretation of them everywhere. Its important that people know their rights!

pramjockey · #**679** (**permalink**) 11-04-2007

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wallaroo

What I dont understand is why self defence rights (or the interpretation of them) varies so much from area to area within the different states? I find that to be absolutely ridiculous, and it doesnt belong here in the 21th century. Each state should have exactly the same self defence laws and interpretation of them everywhere. Its important that people know their rights!

What Mawg's talking about is police corruption and incompetence, not variation in the law.

While criminal codes do vary somewhat between the states, they're all based off Common Law, and are all similar in many (if not most) respects.

Bunz · #**680** (**permalink**) 11-04-2007

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wallaroo

What I dont understand is why self defence rights (or the interpretation of them) varies so much from area to area within the different states? I find that to be absolutely ridiculous, and it doesnt belong here in the 21th century. Each state should have exactly the same self defence laws and interpretation of them everywhere. Its important that people know their rights!

I dont think the Feds need to get involved in this. It is the responsibility of the states. Let them figure it out, it is amazing what competant lawyers and a jury can come up with.

mawg · #**681** (**permalink**) 11-04-2007

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wallaroo

What I dont understand is why self defence rights (or the interpretation of them) varies so much from area to area within the different states? I find that to be absolutely ridiculous, and it doesnt belong here in the 21th century. Each state should have exactly the same self defence laws and interpretation of them everywhere. Its important that people know their rights!

The actual law does vary, despite what unlearned individuals would have you believe .

things which are ok in one state are illegal in another , as free states in a union of states this is entirely fine.

in some states you are required to flee your home to try to escape from an invading criminal instead of defending it , in this locality if you are inside the door uninvited you are wrong and the home owner can use lethal force if necessary without the need to prove a lack of an escape path.

this is a definite direct opposite in law not a variation, same with physical attacks , some state apparently think it is fine to allow others to spit on you , this one doesnt.

the law here recognizes that physical attack is physical contact , by any part of your person - your bodily fluids are no exception - ( and in this day of aids and hepatitus etc , I am not sure why anyone would think otherwise)

I do not see what the date has to do with the fact that some locations differ in their laws.
I guess one would have to be a globalist to expect that all places worldwide should have the same laws, and I am certainly not a globalist I am extremely against that notion.

pramjockey · #**682** (**permalink**) 11-04-2007

LMAO

Nobody has caught HIV or hepatitis from being spit upon.

And, if you'd bothered to read the statutes I posted (maybe they're too tough for you?) you'd find that the state requires that the response be reasonable (that's a legal standard). Beating someone to a pulp for spitting on you is not likely to be found as reasonable in court.

Steve · #**683** (**permalink**) 11-04-2007

Quote:

Originally Posted by pramjockey

LMAO

Nobody has caught HIV or hepatitis from being spit upon.

And, if you'd bothered to read the statutes I posted (maybe they're too tough for you?) you'd find that the state requires that the response be reasonable (that's a legal standard). Beating someone to a pulp for spitting on you is not likely to be found as reasonable in court.

Caught it?

Maybe not.

But at least one guy was sure the fuck convicted for it:

Felony Conviction Upheld

pramjockey · #**684** (**permalink**) 11-04-2007

Bad choice on the Ohio Supreme Court part.

But, wouldn't be the first.

Of course, anyone that's stupid enough to spit in the face of a police officer...

Oh, and just out of curiosity, did they demonstrate that he intended harm? I wasn't able to find the OSC case to read about their decision.

I did see that other states have pursued felony assault convictions for attempted spread of disease by spitting. That's not really what we're talking about here.

mawg · #**685** (**permalink**) 11-04-2007

I am done arguing it , I have this last to say on the matter

if you physically assault another person and do it in a location which is different than your home state I suggest you learn the local laws before relying on all laws being the same everywhere.

blood and spittle can transmit disease , but the very act of those touching another in an act as described "spitting on someone " constitutes a physical attack and the relevant local laws will come into play.

best bet is not to be an ass and not assault others.

Steve · #**686** (**permalink**) 11-04-2007

Quote:

Originally Posted by pramjockey

Oh, and just out of curiosity, did they demonstrate that he intended harm?

Oh, and out of curiosity, did you bother to actually read the fucking article?

The prosecution contended that in 1993, Jimmy Bird used saliva as a weapon against a police officer

When you use a weapon against someone, is there any other intent?

pramjockey · #**687** (**permalink**) 11-04-2007

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steve

Oh, and out of curiosity, did you bother to actually read the fucking article?

The prosecution contended that in 1993, Jimmy Bird used saliva as a weapon against a police officer

When you use a weapon against someone, is there any other intent?

My apologies, I missed that. Trying to multitask.

pramjockey · #**688** (**permalink**) 11-04-2007

Quote:

Originally Posted by mawg

best bet is not to be an ass and not assault others.

See? We can agree on some things.

Steve · #**689** (**permalink**) 11-04-2007

Quote:

Originally Posted by pramjockey

My apologies, I missed that. Trying to multitask.

Oh, sure.

Completely missing the most important part of the article... Totally understandable...

pramjockey · #**690** (**permalink**) 11-04-2007

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steve

Oh, sure.

Completely missing the most important part of the article... Totally understandable...

Oh, that's right. I forgot.

You're fucking perfect.

backatcha

View Poll Results: Do You Regularly Carry A Firearm?
Yes	47	29.94%
No	110	70.06%
Voters: 157. You may not vote on this poll