wrote in message
...
On Mon, 4 Mar 2013 09:24:23 -0600, "HeyBub"
wrote:

Attila Iskander wrote:



I'm so sorry that you don't read what was written.
Running away is not the same as running away while committing a
felony. Eg running away with a stolen gun or anything that's worth more
than
(usual) $50.

Stopping a crime being committed is generally covered by "deadly
force" laws.
And the reason most states have such a provision is to cover for the
police when they actually shoot a perp "running away" if they believe
he has or still is committing a felony
It just happens that such laws are NOT exclusive to LEOs, and they
apply to citizens as well.

It works like this:

"The alleged perp was running away, but he stopped and pointed what I
believed to be a weapon in my direction. In fear of my life, I discharged
my
service pistol. While the bullet was in flight, the perp turned around to
continue his escape..."


That may work in Texas but you are getting arrested in any North East
state. A $250,000 lawyer bill may get you off but that is quite a fine
for shooting a guy who stole your wallet. If you shot the guy square
in the back, $250k might not get you off.

As a reference, even in Florida Zimmerman has paid over $200,000 in
legal fees and he hasn't even been to trial yet ... on a case that
the state is going to lose.



That sounds just like the same ignorant drivel spouted by those who claim
that it's risky to load your own for self-defense.

"Harry K" wrote in message
...
On Mar 4, 6:31 am, "Attila Iskander" wrote:
wrote in message

...

On Sun, 3 Mar 2013 20:34:22 -0600, "Attila Iskander"
wrote:

Most States have laws allowing the use of deadly force to stop a
criminal
getting away while committing a felony.

Maybe Texas but far from "most states".
In fact most states do not allow deadly force unless there is imminent
threat of bodily harm, some even qualify that to say you must have no
ability to run away, even inside your house. (I know a guy in Md who
did hard time for it)
If you shoot someone running away in a "blue" state, you are going to
jail. Do not pass go, do not collect $200

I'm so sorry that you don't read what was written.
Running away is not the same as running away while committing a felony.
Eg running away with a stolen gun or anything that's worth more than
(usual)
$50.

Stopping a crime being committed is generally covered by "deadly force"
laws.
And the reason most states have such a provision is to cover for the
police
when they actually shoot a perp "running away" if they believe he has or
still is committing a felony
It just happens that such laws are NOT exclusive to LEOs, and they apply
to
citizens as well.
#
# And as I pointed out above, you are wrong. Police are NOT allowed to
# shoot "fleeing felons" unless there is a very good reason to do so.
# CLUE for the CLUELESS - there are lots of grades of felonies and damn
# few of them would justfy being shot at while fleeing.
#
# Yes, I see that my original post was to fgretw, not you. So why did
# you step in there and then prove my point of your wrongness in the
# next post?


Repeating yourself like a stupid parrot doesn't make you right.
Just repetitive
There are all kinds of situations where you are perfectly in your right to
shoot
someone "running away"
Trying to escape with the goods of a felony theft is one of them
Most states DO have a statute to that effect.


Vermont
http://www.leg.state.vt.us/statutes/...&Section=02305
justifiable homicide - Guiltless
(2) In the suppression of a person attempting to commit murder, sexual
assault, aggravated sexual assault, burglary or robbery, with force or
violence; or

If the "robber" is still around and absconding with the goods, he is
STILL in effect in the process of committing robbery

New Hampshire
http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/...27/627-mrg.htm
627:8 Use of Force in Property Offenses. - A person is justified in
using force upon another when and to the extent that he reasonably believes
it necessary to prevent what is or reasonably appears to be an unlawful
taking of his property, or criminal mischief, or to retake his property
immediately following its taking; but he may use deadly force under such
circumstances only in defense of a person as prescribed in RSA 627:4.


I'll leave you to educate yourself about other NE States, which pretty well
have similar statutes

Bottom line is your argument will be
"I was trying to stop him from committing the crime.
Unfortunately, he consequently died from my attempt to stop him."
There is jurisprudence, that in effect you will walk..

"Harry K" wrote in message
...
On Mar 4, 6:32 am, "Attila Iskander" wrote:
"Harry K" wrote in message

...
On Mar 3, 7:48 pm, wrote: On Sun, 3 Mar 2013
20:34:22 -0600, "Attila Iskander"

wrote:
Most States have laws allowing the use of deadly force to stop a
criminal
getting away while committing a felony.

Maybe Texas but far from "most states".
In fact most states do not allow deadly force unless there is imminent
threat of bodily harm, some even qualify that to say you must have no
ability to run away, even inside your house. (I know a guy in Md who
did hard time for it)
If you shoot someone running away in a "blue" state, you are going to
jail. Do not pass go, do not collect $200

#
# Correct. Even the police are not allowed to shoot fleeing felons in
# most states unless there is a very good reson to do so, the act of
# fleeing in and of itself is not sufficient.

What is wrong with your reading skills
Notice the "WHILE COMMITTING A FELONY " at the end of the sentence ?
Or was that phrase too complex for you two ?
#
# Did you not notice that you mentioned shooting someone running away?
#

You're still too busy responding BEFORE you read COMPLETLY and UNDERSTOOD as
well what I wrote...

#
# They are not allowed to shoot even "WHILE COMMITTING A FELONY" except
# to preserve life.

If he is running away with the goods from the felony, he's STILL in the
process of COMMITTING the felony.
And YOU can use force to stop him

See how simple that is..

On 03-04-2013 15:36, Oren wrote:
All wars are fought because of the penis. Except for Maggy. She
started a war.

If that's intended to imply started by males, maybe.

If you mean based on sex, not so. Majority are based on hunger or greed.

--
Wes Groleau

Liar, Liar, Pants on Fire!
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-me...gs/pants-fire/

On 03-04-2013 16:08, Oren wrote:
It is the liberal mind. I don't change my mind for the most part.

Are you a politician? If not, then your behavior can't refute my
description of politicians.

--
Wes Groleau

Liar, Liar, Pants on Fire!
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-me...gs/pants-fire/

On 03-04-2013 12:23, Oren wrote:
Well it had to happened. Somebody took Biden's advice and got
arrested.

"A 22-year-old Virginia man has been charged with firing a shotgun
through the door of his house on the same day that Vice President Joe
Biden said that if €œyou want to keep someone away from your house,
just fire the shotgun through the door.€�

[...]

"...He then grabbed his shotgun and fired several shots through his
closed bedroom door, toward the window."

Perhaps they'll attempt to use "The Vice President said so" as a
defense. :-)

--
Wes Groleau

Liar, Liar, Pants on Fire!
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-me...gs/pants-fire/

wrote in message
...
On Mon, 4 Mar 2013 20:10:56 -0600, "Attila Iskander"
wrote:



That sounds just like the same ignorant drivel spouted by those who claim
that it's risky to load your own for self-defense.

When you look at what you can buy these days, why bother?
Reloading made sense when 9mm and .45 was FMJ loaded for the rustiest
old gun SAAMI could find.
Now days there are high performance bullets in +P or P+P velocities.

It depends on how much you shoot. I reload because I like to shoot a lot.
Also I have a small 40 cal that I like to shoot 155 GR bullets in and
download it some so it does not kick as much, but still does not cause
feeding problems. At 20 feet or less, that small loss of velocity should
not mater.

What are those high performance bullets costing ? A dollar or more each ?

Also with the big buy out now, it is difficult to find the loaded ammo of
most kinds. It is also difficult to find components now also. It is less
costly to store the bullets, powder,and primers than it is the loaded stuff.

Wes Groleau wrote:
On 03-04-2013 15:36, Oren wrote:
All wars are fought because of the penis. Except for Maggy. She
started a war.

If that's intended to imply started by males, maybe.

If you mean based on sex, not so. Majority are based on hunger or
greed.

Greed, yes. Hunger, no.

"Revolutions are started by those who have much and want more. The abject
poor are too busy finding their next meal to take up arms" (paraphrased)
"The True Believer" by Eric Hoffer.

Attila Iskander wrote:

That sounds just like the same ignorant drivel spouted by those who
claim that it's risky to load your own for self-defense.

If you mean "reloading your own ammunition" (to be "hotter" than usual), you
are correct.

When talking about commercial ammunition, it's difficult to refute a
prosecutors claim: "The defendant SET OUT to kill! Why else would he have
loaded his weapon with "Atlas Red Rhino Atomic Devestator Orphan Maker"
ammunition...?" The same logic and argument would obtain if someone
hand-loaded bullets to be sooper-dooper.

I use Glazer Safety Rounds in my carry weapons. These are frangible rounds,
meaning they fragment into a zillion pieces upon impact. The massive damage
they do is an unfortunate consequence of their inteded characteristic of no
over-penetration or ricochette (wink-wink). Heck, they even have "Safety" as
part of their name!

"HeyBub" wrote in message
m...
Attila Iskander wrote:

That sounds just like the same ignorant drivel spouted by those who
claim that it's risky to load your own for self-defense.

If you mean "reloading your own ammunition" (to be "hotter" than usual),
you are correct.

When talking about commercial ammunition, it's difficult to refute a
prosecutors claim: "The defendant SET OUT to kill! Why else would he have
loaded his weapon with "Atlas Red Rhino Atomic Devestator Orphan Maker"
ammunition...?" The same logic and argument would obtain if someone
hand-loaded bullets to be sooper-dooper.


We're still waiting for a cite of such a case...



I use Glazer Safety Rounds in my carry weapons. These are frangible
rounds, meaning they fragment into a zillion pieces upon impact. The
massive damage they do is an unfortunate consequence of their inteded
characteristic of no over-penetration or ricochette (wink-wink). Heck,
they even have "Safety" as part of their name!

Attila Iskander wrote:
"HeyBub" wrote in message
m...
Attila Iskander wrote:

That sounds just like the same ignorant drivel spouted by those who
claim that it's risky to load your own for self-defense.

If you mean "reloading your own ammunition" (to be "hotter" than
usual), you are correct.

When talking about commercial ammunition, it's difficult to refute a
prosecutors claim: "The defendant SET OUT to kill! Why else would he
have loaded his weapon with "Atlas Red Rhino Atomic Devestator
Orphan Maker" ammunition...?" The same logic and argument would
obtain if someone hand-loaded bullets to be sooper-dooper.


We're still waiting for a cite of such a case...


A cite is difficult inasmuch as issues such as this are raised at the trial
level and seldom make it to published opinions of appelate courts.


Nevertheless, here are four cases. Note the first case includes the
observation (by the DA):

“Why wasn’t regular ammunition deadly enough for you,” used by opposing
counsel. They charged Kennedy with aggravated assault. They made a large
issue out of his use of handloads, suggesting that they were indicative of a
reckless man obsessed with causing maximum damage.


http://www.thehighroad.org/showpost....&postcount=140

On Mar 4, 11:09*am, The Daring Dufas the-daring-du...@stinky-
finger.net wrote:
On 3/4/2013 12:23 PM, Oren wrote:





On Mon, 04 Mar 2013 09:53:52 -0600, The Daring Dufas
wrote:

Did you not notice that you mentioned shooting someone running away?

They are not allowed to shoot even "WHILE COMMITTING A FELONY" *except
to preserve life.

Harry K

It really depends on the jurisdiction they're in and whether or not
their boss will back them up. Of course there's always the throw down
gun some cops carry. O_o

TDD

In my city a gun it not required for a throw down. *The officer
writes; *the subject made a "furtive move".

1.secretive: done in a way that is intended to escape notice

2.shifty: presenting the appearance, or giving the impression, of
somebody who has something to hide

Cops will shoot you dead, here.

I had a cop brag to me about how easy it was to kill someone and get
away with it. Me, I just avoid trouble and don't make a scene in any
confrontation with law enforcement. ^_^

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QR465HoCWFQ

TDD

Very good policy. YOu can't win even a simple arguement agains LE on
the side of th the road. The place of complaint/argue is the desk
sargeant in his office.

Harry K

"HeyBub" wrote in message
...
Attila Iskander wrote:
"HeyBub" wrote in message
m...
Attila Iskander wrote:

That sounds just like the same ignorant drivel spouted by those who
claim that it's risky to load your own for self-defense.

If you mean "reloading your own ammunition" (to be "hotter" than
usual), you are correct.

When talking about commercial ammunition, it's difficult to refute a
prosecutors claim: "The defendant SET OUT to kill! Why else would he
have loaded his weapon with "Atlas Red Rhino Atomic Devestator
Orphan Maker" ammunition...?" The same logic and argument would
obtain if someone hand-loaded bullets to be sooper-dooper.


We're still waiting for a cite of such a case...


A cite is difficult inasmuch as issues such as this are raised at the
trial level and seldom make it to published opinions of appelate courts.


Nevertheless, here are four cases. Note the first case includes the
observation (by the DA):

“Why wasn’t regular ammunition deadly enough for you,” used by opposing
counsel. They charged Kennedy with aggravated assault. They made a large
issue out of his use of handloads, suggesting that they were indicative of
a reckless man obsessed with causing maximum damage.


http://www.thehighroad.org/showpost....&postcount=140




You fail to mention that 3 of 4 cases were did not pose a problem and the
argument was demolished by the defense.
In effect the same defense would also work in the future.
IN the 2nd case, there were other far more critical factors.

In other words, it's just fear-mongering.