Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
|
Metalworking (rec.crafts.metalworking) Discuss various aspects of working with metal, such as machining, welding, metal joining, screwing, casting, hardening/tempering, blacksmithing/forging, spinning and hammer work, sheet metal work. |
Reply |
|
LinkBack | Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
|
|||
|
|||
Gunlogix 102
On Sun, 28 Feb 2010 06:45:59 -0600, Lookout
wrote: On Sun, 28 Feb 2010 05:57:18 -0500, Cliff wrote: http://lawblog.legalmatch.com/2010/0...-self-defense/ "If You Don’t Shoot Your Attacker In Kansas Then Waive Bye-Bye To Claiming Self-Defense" [ Kansas is a whacky place, what with its impossibly flat land and endless fields of wheat and sorghum (which is apparently a type of sustainable livestock feed and ethanol fuel source), not to mention the perpetual parade of impervious aliens and supernatural portals. Well, the crazy Kansans of the Sunflower State can now add a new claim to fame by being the only state that requires you to shoot your attacker with your gun as a prerequisite to claiming self-defense, or else the defense will be waived and you’ll be charged with aggravated assault. Hmm… That new one doesn’t quite roll off the tongue as easily as “The Barbed Wire Capital of the World.” In a recent case before the Kansas Court of Appeals, a majority of the court held that under Kansas law, citizens who attempt to claim self-defense when confronted by either the threat of harm which they reasonably believe will occur or are under actual physical attack, can only claim the defense if they use actual physical force against their attacker. Sounds like a technicality in Kansas law wherein a threat (brandishing a deadly weapon) is regarded as aggressive (assault) while self defense is only available if the actor inflicts actual harm. I don't know anything about the culture in Kansas, but I can see how this might seem sensible to some lawmakers. It preserves the notion of self defense for those who act decisively because they believe they're in immediate grave peril -- if later review by a jury of their peers determines that such belief and action was reasonable under the circumstances. It deprives the use of self defense as a pass to brandish deadly weapons to win bar fights. If he'd shot anyone then his claim of self defense would be against a more serious charge, and if he did that merely because his fiancee got decked because she continued the fight outside then I think he'd be convicted. |
Reply |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
Gunlogix 102 | Metalworking | |||
Gunlogix 102 | Metalworking |