Text 48368, 102 rader
Skriven 2007-02-21 10:11:59 av Roy Witt (1:397/22)
  Kommentar till text 48353 av Matt Bedynek (1:106/1)
Ärende: Real News in the Snooze
===============================
21 Feb 07 02:28, Matt Bedynek wrote to Roy Witt:

 MB>>> See sections 9.22, 9.31 and 9.32.
 RW>> See 9.41 and 9.42
 RW>> 9.41 speaks of protection of property under threat and refers to
 RW>> 9.42 for the use of deadly force.

 RW>> 9.42 speaks to the use of deadly force.

 MB> I respect your opinion, Roy, but I still believe you have a poor
 MB> understanding of this.

That makes us even.

 MB> You can post the entire book but it boils down to one thing.

I knew what the law actually said and you didn't.

 MB> Justice is swift if you don't have a good lawyer.

I have insurance for such matters, plus the backing of the NRA's ILA.

 MB> From the perspective of the person charged with the crime, it is
 MB> guility until proven innocent.

It may look that way to you, but it isn't reality.

 MB>   Having said that, if you were charged with a crime, once charged,

                         ^^
With the deceased laying at the feet of the officer investigating the
call, he can see a 45 caliber hole in the chest of the body and a weapon
of some sort in his hand, and I say, I felt that my life was being
threatened by this whiskered, big man, waving his weapon at me and
threatening the life of my wife and myself.

 MB> the burden of proof is on you to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that
 MB> you were protecting your property or life.

 MB>   That means if Ward or anyone else knocked on your door and you

I've said that he wouldn't be knocking on my door for a reason. Unless of
course, he snuck past the guard at the 'gated community' entrance.

 MB> "blew them away" you better be good at forging forensic evidence
 MB> otherwise you will be uploading QWK replies from Huntsville, TX.

 RW>>  1, eff. Jan. 1, 1974. Acts 1973, 63rd Leg., p. 883, ch. 399,  1.01,
 RW>> eff. Sept. 1, 1994. Amended by Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 900,  Acts
 RW>> 1973, 63rd Leg., p. 883, ch. 399,

 MB> Which is great but you better be prepared to prove you were
 MB> justified.

No problem.

 RW>> Who said he'd be allowed to knock on the door?

 MB> *sigh*  who says the mailman is allowed to knock at the door?

See above. <sigh>

 MB> You never gave him permission.  You simply chose to not deny
 MB> permission.

 RW>> See above. You're talking gibberish without the law to back you.

 MB> If you don't believe what I say, make some telephone calls to Austin.

I don't believe you, because you're not believable. I've dealt in these
matters before and have a life experience that you'll probably never have.

 MB> Be sure to leave us the name, number of the person you spoke with and
 MB> the questions you ask them so we can confirm it.

 RW>> See Texas HB 284. Since he said he wouldn't be able to make his
 RW>> visit soon, after September 1, 2007, his family wouldn't be able to
 RW>> suit.

 MB> So how does this relieve you of the responsibility to provide proof
 MB> that force was justified?

It is in reply to your insistance that my fortune would be in jeopardy. If
you had read it, you wouldn't have bothered to ask the above stupid
question.

 MB>>> And, to be honest, you don't sound responsible right now.

 RW>> You might want to go to the linen closet and pull out a clean towel.
 RW>> Try using it to wipe some of that moisture from behind your ears.

 MB> (thumbs up!)

I knew you'd agree.

               R\%/itt




--- Twit(t) Filter v2.1 (C) 2000
 * Origin: SATX Alamo Area Net * South * Texas, USA * (1:397/22)