On Jan 28, 8:05*am, "Attila Iskander"
wrote:
"Robert Macy" wrote in message

...
On Jan 26, 1:13 pm, wrote: ...snip...
Uh, it is my understanding that we already have law since before 70's
that prevents one from 'over exuberance' Not sure, but I think the
wording is that once you have removed the threat of bodily harm from
your assailant you are NOT allowed to pummel them anymore. The law was
designed so that if somebody comes at you with a knife, you take the
knife away removing the threat of bodily harm, you are then NOT
allowed to beat the assailant into unconsciousness - preventing you
from trying to administer punishment for the original assault..

Who is "we"?

#
# We live by laws of rule. If there is a law in place, then we all live
# under that law. Thus, "we already have law..." means exactly that. WE
# all live with that law.

Maybe true for sheeple like you who seem unable to think or take
responsibility for themselves and thus need to be told daily how they are to
live.
But intelligent people know that bad laws, lead to bad situations.
And such laws need to be disobeyed and fought by all means possible.

Despite all the blustering, Robert's point is correct:

"Not sure, but I think the
wording is that once you have removed the threat of bodily harm from
your assailant you are NOT allowed to pummel them anymore. "

It's certainly true for the vast majority of the USA. If
there are laws in some places that say otherwise,
I'd like to see the law cited. And do you think the above
referenced concept is a bad law that needs to be disobeyed
and fought by all means possible? What kind of world
would that be?