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.

Strategies & Market Trends : 2026 TeoTwawKi ... 2032 Darkest Interregnum -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: TobagoJack who wrote (17307)	4/16/2007 10:45:26 PM
From: Maurice Winn	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 218632

TJ, so you think it okay to shoot escaping adults, but not children? It is more reasonable to shoot approaching adults who might be a threat, and probably are if being used as a weapon of war. Shooting approaching people is different from shooting fleeing people. I know it's a difficult concept for you, but in law there is a difference in self-defence, which is usually allowed if excessive force isn't used. People breaking into my house and with malice evident, are to be resisted and the law permits that. People fleeing from my threats to them and attempts to keep them prisoner in my house for nefarious purpose cannot be lawfully shot in the back, even if by escaping into somebody else's property said neighbour might shoot them in self-defence. There is no reason why NZ should accept said Tibetan refugees and India also could reasonably guard their borders and shoot any attempted illegal entries in self-defence. India could reasonably build a Great Wall and have guards roaming along it, shooting anyone who tries to get up the wall. China did that, Israel is doing it, the USA is planning it. Self-defence of person and property is an age-old legitimate action. The USA is currently having some difficulty [yet again] because they presumed that by backing one party, the other would accept their intervention. As usual, ooops, it doesn't work like that. I suppose you mean the Vincennes, which shot the Iranian airliner down in error rather than deliberately [according to the film I saw of their action, which showed how absurd the USA military is - they were at panic stations, not action stations; the same absurd behaviour is evident in some video of shoot 'em ups in Iraq, as though the soldiers are playing a video game]. Mqurice