In a message of 11 Feb 97 John Tserkezis wrote to Rod Speed:


 JT>  The papers are supposed to provide an unbiased view of the news in
 JT> question.

Uh, since when John, and on what planet?


 JT>> They say that no-one should get killed for any reason.

 RS>> Thats complete crap too. The CURRENT law says that if you have
 RS>> reasonable fear for your life, you are entitled to kill the assailant
 RS>> if there is no other reasonable course of action available to you.

 RS>> And there is considerable latitude on reasonable fear too. If the
 RS>> assailant turns out to have a fake gun, its still reasonable to assume
 RS>> that its real, you dont have to wait for bullets to come out of it.

 JT>  But first you have to stop to evaluate the situation and see if you
 JT> can prove that you really believed you were in danger.  There are some
 JT> situations where you can't do that.
 

Even ONE situation where you can completely fucks you up on your point
above though John.

Whoops.

 RS>> And I'm talking about changing the law so that if the say burglar you
 RS>> find in your home gets badly injured, thats just too bad for the
 RS>> burglar. We can change the law to that any time we like.

 JT>  Cool idea, why hasn't it been changed already?

Same reason JAckboot and his wanker mates decided to ban semi-auto rifles.


 JT>> Even a friend who was a security guard, was told during training, if
 JT>> they EVER take out their firearm for ANY reason, it will be to shoot to
 JT>> kill, not maim or scare, but shoot to kill.

Wrong - thye should shoot to stop.  If the crim happens to die in the
process, well, that's too bad.



Scott Hillard          c9520272{at}alinga.newcastle.edu.au                    
                                                                           
                           

... "Mulder!  FBI!  Out of the chimney fat man, I have some questions."

--- Spot 1.3a #1590