Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: sylvester80 who wrote (160262)	4/8/2005 6:22:50 PM
From: TimF	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

Is this really the thread for this issue? As for the new law - I would have to know more specifics about the law itself and how it is going to be interpreted and implemented before I could say if I was a supporter or not but there is good reason not to be too demanding about having people try to go through strong measures to avoid conflict. If we are both armed and you pull a gun on me I should be able to shoot you , without having to try and run away first. If I run away you could just shoot me in the back. If you require people to stop and think and plan and/or run before shooting than you might be applying a standard that is unreasonable for a given situation. OTOH self defense claims should rely on real danger, or at least a reasonable cause to perceive danger. "Against anyone they perceive as a threat" is ok if when there is no reasonable cause to consider someone a serious threat that the law does not condone deadly action. You shouldn't be able to say "I thought they where a threat" and get away with it, if you just shoot someone at random walking down the street, or if you shoot a little girl who is trying to hit you over the head with her Barbie doll. But I doubt that such ridiculous excuses will be condoned by this new law. Tim