On Sat, Mar 20, 2010 at 2:02 PM, Rick Archer <r...@searchsummit.com> wrote:
> > > *From:* FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com [mailto: > fairfieldl...@yahoogroups.com] *On Behalf Of *lurkernomore20002000 > *Sent:* Saturday, March 20, 2010 1:13 PM > *To:* FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com > *Subject:* [FairfieldLife] Re: Fwd: She Shot Him 6 Times > > > > The implication of the fictitious story is that execution is an appropriate > sentence for purse snatching, and that all citizens should be authorized to > play judge, jury, and executioner on the spot. It might be argued that she > would have been justified in firing one shot to disable the guy, but her > intent in firing six or more was obviously to kill him. And then "Bill > Hicks" took it to the next logical step by saying that we should be able to > shoot people who take two parking places. The story has no inherent worth. > It merely panders to the murderous tendencies in those who find it > inspiring. And I doubt that shooting a purse snatcher or two would stop many > purse snatchers. It would probably just incline the more hardened criminals > to shoot first and then take the purse. > > In Texas, and I assume other states, you have to take a concealed weapon course which includes reading the applicable laws, statues and ordinances. There are lectures, some work with anger management, training on the firing range and the constant instructions on taking aim with the intention of killing. This story is not true but knowing Houston, land of Lawrence v. Texas, if the story were true, the lady would most likely be no billed as I suspect she would be in Dallas. Austin, well, it's 50/50. There was the rape case where at first the assailant was no billed because the victim asked her rapist to use a condom thereby assenting to intercourse. In the urban legend the woman used more force than police use and her life was not in eminent danger. In the training courses you're told to pull out the gun with the intent to kill, not stop, not maim and only if in eminent danger for your life. The legendary woman would have violated her instructions and overreacted. None the less, I could see her being no billed by the grand jury. I think the legendary lady should be no billed as a form of grand jury nullification. I still maintain that zero tolerance works starting with purse snatchers might be overkill and stretching the limits of the law, but it would cut down this form of crime and more serious crime. As far as Rick saying the sane people on FFL don't take me seriously, he assumes that only those he's already or planning on interviewing are sane. Rick is showing how full of shit he really is. -- My late grandfather told me that if I ate a meatball every day for a hundred years, I would live to a ripe old age.
