always gig em said:

---

An actual lawyer, figured as much by your initial assertion to my initial post. You know, the one where I posted a possible response to a possible scenario. Key word here is "possible". Think about that: possible. Now, you've claimed you're an expert in reasonable, but how about possible? We'll leave that one open for now but if possible wasn't drilled into you in law school then you should seek a partial refund, at minimum sue for damages.

Neither you nor I nor anyone other than the victim and the perp could have known what was "possibly" going to happen that night. Guy robs a victim, victim decides fight or flight and bam, another one bites the dust. Do we then punish an innocent woman for defending herself? Simple human nature kicked in, maybe she was assaulted before, maybe she feared for her kids, or maybe she said f/ck it enough's enough, who knows. How then do we/are we supposed to convict a person for defending themselves and their property based on all the of circumstances, past or present, at the time the crime was committed? Here's a hint: no one, no one, will ever know the answer to this unless you yourself have gone through it, and even then the case applies to the individual. Mitigation consultants, expert testimony, the perp's background, existing case law (of which I'm very sure exists and has been pointed out here but hey, I'll just hire better lawyers than you for that should I ever need it), and maybe some plain old common sense could prove some justice in a court of law. This does happen you know, I mean after all our entire system of justice (on the criminal side) is based on among other things, wait for it......"beyond a reasonable doubt". Who are you to say what is absolutely going to happen? Could you, as in YOU, now definitively say, yes, this poor woman will now face prison time for defending herself? Well, you as an expert might, but the average guy/woman on a jury, who may have to actually google what reasonable means, may think otherwise. And yes, most things are very simple to interpret, no degree required. It's only when the lawyers get involved that things suddenly need interpretation and explanation, as us poor seemingly uneducated pleebs, just need things spelled out for us from time to time. What in the hell would we ever do without you lawyers?

All I did was give a possible response to a possible scenario. POSSIBLE. Some people may think it's okay to watch others walk off with their hard earned stuff, some us on the other hand don't. But just because we don't doesn't mean we'll cap some dirtbag in the back (common sense here counselor), nor are we simply going to stand there and watch him run off while we "call the cops". For you however, to come here and say that simply because you went to smu law, owe/d 100k in student debt and have 15 years of experience that you are now the end all be all in all matters such as this, and can easily state that X will happen is nonsense. Sheer utter arrogant nonsense.

Am I supposed to be astounded that you went to smu law btw? Because I'm not, and it's really not impressive. Nor would any jury be impressed if you ever found yourself as a defense attorney should it have happened/ever happen. Is it reasonable to surmise this? Of course. Is it also possible that they may? Of course. Reasonable. Possible. It is very infinitely factual however, that I hope no one ever finds themselves in a situation like this with you as their lawyer, because according to you they'd be screwed. Right?

I didn't need a degree for this response but I do hope it was coherent enough for you. It didn't cost very much either.

---

Thats a whole lot of gibberish to sort through, but none of it after the bolded section actually matters. See, "possible" is meaningless in the law. In fact, any time you attempt to ask a witness a question relating to what is or isn't "possible," an objection should follow (speculation, relevance), which will be sustained. The law treats just about everything as "possible," so it is essentially meaningless. So yeah, I guess I am an expert in that, too. (As a side note, excellent job trying to change horses mid-stream!)

Please come back with another 300 words about nothing; I don't feel like working today, so sparring with someone like you will help pass the time.

Well this could get interesting now.

HIGHLY doubtful!

BenderRodriguez said:

---

schmellba99 said:

---

Thats not what i said, but thanks for trying to twist into something else.

---

By all means, explain what you were trying to say then, because it looks like you were complaining about TexAgs posters not being wiling to shoot thieves being the reason we still have thieves.

ETA: And like I said, you post something similar every time there is a thread like this.

---

I specifically stated that no matter the answer, it's a crappy answer.

Don't shoot the BG, but get your stuff broken/vandalized/stolen - bad situation.
[Legally] Shoot the BG, you are dealing with a lot of downstream effects - bad situation. One may argue worse, depends on your point of view.
Illegally shoot the BG - well, that seems like an oxymoronic statement - but outside the confines of the law, really bad for everybody.

I've never once made the argument that if we shoot everybody that is a thief that there would be no thieves - never going to happen because people are always going to be people and there is just some percentage of them that are going to be bad. Can't be changed, it's part of evolution and human nature. Haji's chop hands off for thieves - there are a lot of diaper headed folks in the desert that are missing hands. In the old west horse thieves were hung - still a lot of stolen horses were being rode. Nothing is absolute - would be nice if it were, but it's not.

It's also a bad situation that even if you are within the confines of the law, you are still going to likely have a lot of cost because of the actions of somebody else. I didn't say it was right, I didn't say it was wrong - goes back to my comment that no answer is worth a crap in a situation like this. And, frankly, that is one of the root causes of my "this makes me sad" somewhat tongue in cheek comment. We could dissect why, but that would be another thread I suppose.

I personally don't agree with the mentality of "no property is worth me shooting somebody over". That doesn't mean I'm itching to shoot somebody for breaking into my garage or truck or whatever either - unfortunately this board can be viewed in absolutes when I'd venture to guess that 99.999999% of the folks here understand that there is no such thing in this world. Doesn't mean I think a car stereo is worth shooting over either. I will say though that in any situation where one may die for property, it is not the owner of the property that is putting the value on the life of the thief - the thief does that when they take their chances.

To me (and I'm assuming others, could be wrong), and this is just me and my personal view, it's not just a fact that somebody is breaking into my property - it's much, much, much more than that. It's the fact that I work my butt off for that property, it's how I make my living, it's the fact that if some POS steals my vehicle MY insurance is going to go up for it, it's the fact that somebody decided to take it upon themselves to violate the sanctity and security of home for my wife and kids. It's much deeper for me than "just a truck, let them have it" or whatever other similar mentality gets espoused on discussions like these. Others may view things different - we all get to do that. Doesn't make any one of us right or wrong the overwhelming majority of the time.

It sucks that sometimes you have a choice of turd sandwich, or turd sandwich.

I'd love to see some of the posters shoot and claim PC 9.42 as a defense and do it all pro se. Hell, I'd pay to see it.

Is that your way of saying you'll break into someone's garage or vehicle

Irish_Man said:

---

Is that your way of saying you'll break into someone's garage or vehicle

---

No, I'd just love to see them make these arguments in a court of law to a judge and jury and see what happens.