O/T: Protection

"HeyBub" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> [email protected] wrote:
>>
>> Many people don't realize that "Castle Doctrine" isn't always a
>> license to do whatever you please with impunity. In fact, it actually
>> imposes some restrictions that wouldn't be there without it. It also
>> varies from place to place. The Castle Doctrine in two different
>> states may be very different. In most states, it does not allow for
>> more than "reasonable force" to be used. If you could stop somebody by
>> shooting them in the leg, you might find yourself in deep trouble of
>> you decide it's more fun to shoot them in the head.
>
> You are correct that unlimited force is not sanctioned but almost always
> includes the use of "deadly force." The underlying rationale behind the
> theory is the presumption that the goblin is there to kill you. The more
> common "Castle Doctrine" elements involve:
>
> a. No need to retreat,
> b. Use of whatever force, including deadly force, is necessary to stop the
> attack,
> c. Absolute immunity from civil damage claims.
> d. (Often) is operative at any place you have a legal right to be (home,
> car, office, etc.)
> e. Five states (Iowa, New Hampshire, New Mexico, Arizona, and D.C.) have
> no semblance of a Castle Doctrine. Other states have varying incarnations.
>
> "Reasonable force" is NOT contingent on the damage inflicted. Reasonable
> force relies entirely on the method of force used and sometimes the result
> obtained. There is no legal difference between shooting someone in the
> head and shooting them in the foot (assuming both live or both die).
>
> You NEVER shoot to wound - or to pull a Tom Mix and shoot the knife out of
> the attacker's hand. You ALWAYS shoot to "stop the attack." You ALWAYS aim
> for the big things in life - the torso. Further, if you kill the attacker,
> your assertion that he screamed "I'm gonna kill you, you fucker! It's
> potatoes for you!" will go unchallenged.
>
A local LEO made this distinction for me.

If you shoot somebody breaking into your house, make sure he falls in the
house, not outside of the house. Outside, you are busted big time and will
do time. Inside, it is OK. You were just defending your home.

And it may be that way, but what sane person is going to let a whacko invade
their home before you shoot? I guess you have to bide your time and time
the shot perfectly. Or scream and yell and scare them away.

I am very happy that I have never had to make a decision like this.

"J. Clarke" wrote
>
> Most wasp spray is based on a pyrethroid of one kind or another. In
> general
> pyrethroids have very low toxicity to humans--some are approved for
> treating
> clothing to provide insect protection. The real knockdown power isn't in
> the insecticide anyway, it's the mineral spirits--squirt a wasp with WD-40
> and it drops just as fast and doesn't usually get back up.
>
AHA!!!

A wood dorker has discovered the next, new self defense spray.

<drum roll> WD-40!!

Available at any hardware or big box store!

And you will never get busted for carrying a concealed weapon!

(Where is Billy Mays when you need him?)

"CW" wrote:

> Don't waste your time. This "Salty" twit is an ignorant troll. He
> has no idea what he is talking about and has no want for and
> intelligent discussion. I plonked him a while ago.

You should see some of his stuff over on rec.boats.cruising &
rec.boats.building.

It's while kill files were invented.

Lew

J. Clarke wrote:
>>
>> Inflammatory rhetoric? I offered a hint about BUG SPRAY. Nothing
>> inflammatory about it, unless you want to light up the chemicals.
>> You're the one who tried to veer the conversation toward guns and
>> duty and rights and freedom of speech (the last three items about
>> which you evidently know little).
>
> So you're going to shoot them between the eyes with .44 caliber BUG
> SPRAY <wink wink nudge nudge>?

You're the one who brought up guns. I don't think I can be fairly criticized
for expanding the topic you initiated. If you don't want to be subject to
contrarian views, don't create molehills.

>
>> Now if you are in the same "camp" as I, and you are embarrassed, I
>> suggest you own the problem, not me.
>
> Many who make fools of themselves think that the foolishness is on
> the part of those who are laughing at them. When the government
> decides to repeal the First Amendment I _will_ be saying "I told you
> so".
>


So now it's humor, not embarrassment? You have the attention span of kitten
in a box of packing peanuts. You keep switching emphasis trying, without
hope, to find a topic on which your logic can prevail. Give it up.


>>>> Second, "freedom of speech" (actually the "duty" to not suppress)
>>>> applies only to a government entity, not newsgroups.
>>>
>>> Which is irrelevant to the point.
>>
>> Jeeze! YOU'RE the one who brought up "freedom of speech." Now you're
>> saying a topic you initiated is irrelevant!
>
> No, its applicability to government, not newsgroups, is irrelevant.

Pay attention, slick, the concept of "Freedom of Speech" applies ONLY to the
government. Should you want to express the view that one is unrestrained to
post personal views somewhere, use that phrase, not one owned by the
Constitution.

>
>> Since you're so keen on offering unsolicited advice, let's see if you
>> can take some. Don't torment the alligators.
>
> When an alligator shows up I'll bear that in mind.

And I will continue to deny your allegations and damn the alligator.

On Fri, 18 Dec 2009 17:41:49 -0700, the infamous Doug Winterburn
<[email protected]> scrawled the following:

>On 12/18/2009 05:18 PM, J. Clarke wrote:
>> [email protected] wrote:
>>> On Fri, 18 Dec 2009 15:31:53 -0700, Matt<[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>>> [email protected] wrote:
>>>>> On Fri, 18 Dec 2009 10:41:31 -0800 (PST), "[email protected]"
>>>>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Dec 18, 12:20 pm, [email protected] wrote:
>>>>>>> On Fri, 18 Dec 2009 18:04:53 GMT, notbob<[email protected]>
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 2009-12-18, Lew Hodgett<[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> The wasp spray temporarily blinds an attacker until they get
>>>>>>>>> to the hospital for an antidote.
>>>>>>>> No doubt! In fact, probably works faster/better on ppl than on
>>>>>>>> real wasps.
>>>>>>>> nb
>>>>>>> The resulting lawsuit will hurt you a lot more than you hurt the
>>>>>>> attacker.
>>>>>> That's why you need the proper application of a shotgun too.
>>>>>> Living in a state that has accepted the Castle Doctrine helps.
>>>>>
>>>>> The castle doctrine doesn't protect you from lawsuits, or from
>>>>> violation of federal law. Spraying someone with bug spray is a
>>>>> violation of federal law, and is also illegal in many localities.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> DAGS on "wasp spray for protection" (without the quotes), and you'll
>>>> find numerous articles which state just that, and information that
>>>> indicates that pepper spray is actually more effective and longer
>>>> lasting. So while wasp spray sounds good, it's really not a good
>>>> idea.
>>>>
>>>> Matt
>>>
>>> Pepper spray in a small space (typical room) may be just as bad for
>>> the sprayer as the sprayee. The stuff does create a certain amount of
>>> mist which can cover a larger area than you may want.
>>>
>>> Used outdoors and within a couple of feet of the target individual,
>>> pepper spray can be very effective.
>>>
>>> If I'm close enough to use pepper spray (directly in an intruder's
>>> face), I may opt for the D-cell MagLight instead - at least swinging
>>> the MagLight doesn't irritate my eyes...
>>>
>>> Maybe a Rottweiler as a guard dog instead of personally applied
>>> deterrents?
>>
>> My housekeeping is such that I fully expect that the first notice I'm going
>> to have of an intruder is the crash as he trips over something and then
>> "SNICK SNACK" from the 12 gage will take the rest of the fight out of him.
>
>Here's a nice little snick-snacker:
>
>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HXWoW3fw0IY

Sweet! But at $1,100-$1,600, a bit out of my range. Hell, I could
buy almost 1/3 of a Festeringtool for that price.

--
This episode raises disturbing questions about scientific standards,
at least in highly political areas such as global warming. Still,
it's remarkable to see how quickly corrective information can now
spread. After years of ignored freedom-of-information requests and
stonewalling, all it took was disclosure to change the debate. Even
the most influential scientists must prove their case in the court
of public opinion—a court that, thanks to the Web, is one where
eventually all views get a hearing. --Gordon Crovitz, WSJ 12/9/09

LDosser wrote:
>>>
>>> The OJ case being one of the most publicized examples.
>>
>> I didn't know Nichole, and squeeze, attacked OJ in his house. I
>> missed that part.
>
>
> No, but OJ was sued for wrongful death and lost after being found
> Innocent of the killing by a Jury. If you gun down a perp, the
> prosecutor may choose not to charge you with anything, but the perp's
> relatives may choose to sue you for wrongful death and Win.

True, maybe. Some forms of the "Castle Doctrine" immunity from civil suits
include ANY place you have a legal right to be, not just your home (car,
shopping mall, amusement park, movie theatre, whore house, etc.).

<[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Fri, 18 Dec 2009 10:41:31 -0800 (PST), "[email protected]"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>On Dec 18, 12:20 pm, [email protected] wrote:
>>> On Fri, 18 Dec 2009 18:04:53 GMT, notbob <[email protected]> wrote:
>>> >On 2009-12-18, Lew Hodgett <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>> >> The wasp spray temporarily blinds an attacker until they get to the
>>> >> hospital for an antidote.
>>>
>>> >No doubt! In fact, probably works faster/better on ppl than on real
>>> >wasps.
>>>
>>> >nb
>>>
>>> The resulting lawsuit will hurt you a lot more than you hurt the
>>> attacker.
>>
>>That's why you need the proper application of a shotgun too. Living
>>in a state that has accepted the Castle Doctrine helps.
>
> The castle doctrine doesn't protect you from lawsuits, or from
> violation of federal law. Spraying someone with bug spray is a
> violation of federal law, and is also illegal in many localities.
>

Do you just make this up as you go?

On Fri, 18 Dec 2009 16:34:33 -0800, "CW" <[email protected]>
wrote:

>
><[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>> On Fri, 18 Dec 2009 18:04:53 GMT, notbob <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>>On 2009-12-18, Lew Hodgett <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>>> The wasp spray temporarily blinds an attacker until they get to the
>>>> hospital for an antidote.
>>>
>>>No doubt! In fact, probably works faster/better on ppl than on real
>>>wasps.
>>>
>>>nb
>>
>> The resulting lawsuit will hurt you a lot more than you hurt the
>> attacker.
>>
>
>Nope.

Well, I guess if you live in a trailer and have no assets or prospects
for a job, that is true. Sorry for not including your demographic!

On Fri, 18 Dec 2009 21:47:25 -0800, "LDosser" <[email protected]>
wrote:

>"krw" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>> On Fri, 18 Dec 2009 13:48:33 -0500, [email protected] wrote:
>>
>>>On Fri, 18 Dec 2009 10:41:31 -0800 (PST), "[email protected]"
>>><[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Dec 18, 12:20 pm, [email protected] wrote:
>>>>> On Fri, 18 Dec 2009 18:04:53 GMT, notbob <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>> >On 2009-12-18, Lew Hodgett <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> >> The wasp spray temporarily blinds an attacker until they get to the
>>>>> >> hospital for an antidote.
>>>>>
>>>>> >No doubt! In fact, probably works faster/better on ppl than on real
>>>>> >wasps.
>>>>>
>>>>> >nb
>>>>>
>>>>> The resulting lawsuit will hurt you a lot more than you hurt the
>>>>> attacker.
>>>>
>>>>That's why you need the proper application of a shotgun too. Living
>>>>in a state that has accepted the Castle Doctrine helps.
>>>
>>>The castle doctrine doesn't protect you from lawsuits, or from
>>>violation of federal law. Spraying someone with bug spray is a
>>>violation of federal law, and is also illegal in many localities.
>>
>> The proper application of the shotgun does protect you from said law
>> suit, though.
>
>
>Only if you kill all the relatives and maybe even his livestock.

Are you always this dumb?

J. Clarke wrote:

> Matt wrote:
>> [email protected] wrote:
>>> On Fri, 18 Dec 2009 10:41:31 -0800 (PST), "[email protected]"
>>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Dec 18, 12:20 pm, [email protected] wrote:
>>>>> On Fri, 18 Dec 2009 18:04:53 GMT, notbob <[email protected]>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>> On 2009-12-18, Lew Hodgett <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>>> The wasp spray temporarily blinds an attacker until they get to
>>>>>>> the hospital for an antidote.
>>>>>> No doubt! In fact, probably works faster/better on ppl than on
>>>>>> real wasps.
>>>>>> nb
>>>>> The resulting lawsuit will hurt you a lot more than you hurt the
>>>>> attacker.
>>>> That's why you need the proper application of a shotgun too. Living
>>>> in a state that has accepted the Castle Doctrine helps.
>>>
>>> The castle doctrine doesn't protect you from lawsuits, or from
>>> violation of federal law. Spraying someone with bug spray is a
>>> violation of federal law, and is also illegal in many localities.
>>>
>>
>> DAGS on "wasp spray for protection" (without the quotes), and you'll
>> find numerous articles which state just that, and information that
>> indicates that pepper spray is actually more effective and longer
>> lasting. So while wasp spray sounds good, it's really not a good
>> idea.
>
> Uh, is it lawful to spray someone with pepper spray?
>
> As for spraying someone with bug spray being a violation of Federal law,
> I'd like to see an example of someone being successfully prosecuted under
> Federal law for dousing an assailant with bug spray.
>

It would probably be tied to intent. If you got an avaricious prosecutor
whose view is that it is up to the police to protect the public and he/she
wanted to make a case of it, if he/she could show that you had the bug spray
*specifically* to use for self-defense (i.e., intent), then he/she might go
after you for that. If on the other hand, you grabbed the bug spray just
because it was the closest thing to hand and you were in danger, you were
simply using the most expedient article available for your self-defense.


> Just remember, "It is better to be tried by 12 than carried by 6".

... and that's the point, isn't it. There was a recent 911 call put on
the internet of a woman in Oklahoma whose home was being broken into. The
whole call was heartrending, you could tell this woman did not want to take
a life, but the sheriff was minutes away while the perp was trying to get
into her house. She was forced to shoot the perp when he broke through the
patio door. She was devastated, but at least alive -- that's what the 911
operator kept telling her -- you have to protect yourself. The guy was
high on something and could very easily have killed this woman for a few
bucks to get his next fix.

--

There is never a situation where having more rounds is a disadvantage

Rob Leatham

On Dec 18, 1:52=A0am, "LDosser" <[email protected]> wrote:
> "Lew Hodgett" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> news:[email protected]...
>
> > SFWIW, passing along as requested
>
> > Lew
> > -----------------------------------------------
> > Wasp Spray
>
> Good idea, but unlike the wasps the recipient may still be on its feed an=
d
> angry. Best have a plan on what to do next. At home it would be grab the
> shotgun.

Most insecticides are chemical variants of military
nerve agents, and work by interfering with neurotransmitters.
Wasp spray has a good chance of working, so long as
you don't care about any possible long term toxic effects.

On Fri, 18 Dec 2009 17:59:19 -0600, "HeyBub" <[email protected]>
wrote:

>[email protected] wrote:
>>
>> Many people don't realize that "Castle Doctrine" isn't always a
>> license to do whatever you please with impunity. In fact, it actually
>> imposes some restrictions that wouldn't be there without it. It also
>> varies from place to place. The Castle Doctrine in two different
>> states may be very different. In most states, it does not allow for
>> more than "reasonable force" to be used. If you could stop somebody by
>> shooting them in the leg, you might find yourself in deep trouble of
>> you decide it's more fun to shoot them in the head.
>
>You are correct that unlimited force is not sanctioned but almost always
>includes the use of "deadly force." The underlying rationale behind the
>theory is the presumption that the goblin is there to kill you. The more
>common "Castle Doctrine" elements involve:
>
>a. No need to retreat,
>b. Use of whatever force, including deadly force, is necessary to stop the
>attack,
>c. Absolute immunity from civil damage claims.
>d. (Often) is operative at any place you have a legal right to be (home,
>car, office, etc.)
>e. Five states (Iowa, New Hampshire, New Mexico, Arizona, and D.C.) have no
>semblance of a Castle Doctrine. Other states have varying incarnations.
>
>"Reasonable force" is NOT contingent on the damage inflicted. Reasonable
>force relies entirely on the method of force used and sometimes the result
>obtained. There is no legal difference between shooting someone in the head
>and shooting them in the foot (assuming both live or both die).
>
>You NEVER shoot to wound - or to pull a Tom Mix and shoot the knife out of
>the attacker's hand. You ALWAYS shoot to "stop the attack." You ALWAYS aim
>for the big things in life - the torso. Further, if you kill the attacker,
>your assertion that he screamed "I'm gonna kill you, you fucker! It's
>potatoes for you!" will go unchallenged.
>

Best of luck to you with that.

On Sat, 19 Dec 2009 10:37:55 -0700, Mark & Juanita
<[email protected]> wrote:

>[email protected] wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 18 Dec 2009 17:18:41 -0500, [email protected] wrote:
>>
>... snip
>>>
>>>Then they can relase the perp and tell him to try again. My second
>>>line of defense is loaded with 6 rounds and will probably do more harm
>>>to the perp than any insect spray...
>>>
>>>John
>>
>> Many people don't realize that "Castle Doctrine" isn't always a
>> license to do whatever you please with impunity. In fact, it actually
>> imposes some restrictions that wouldn't be there without it. It also
>> varies from place to place. The Castle Doctrine in two different
>> states may be very different. In most states, it does not allow for
>> more than "reasonable force" to be used. If you could stop somebody by
>> shooting them in the leg, you might find yourself in deep trouble of
>> you decide it's more fun to shoot them in the head.
>
> That statement is flat out wrong. First of all, once you have been place
>in a situation where deadly force is necessary, the idea that choosing area
>of the perp to hit is ludicrous. The person placed in such a situation is
>going to be aiming for center of mass -- adrenalin and stress aren't going
>to provide the luxury of calmly selected shot placement. Therefore, no
>determination of whether the aggrieved homeowner should have aimed to shoot
>the perp in the leg vs. killing the perp is going to be assessed.
>
> However, the over-riding guidance is that the justification is "shoot to
>stop". It is legal to fire multiple rounds until the perp falls over and
>stops his aggression. It is NOT legal to fire multiple rounds, have the
>perp fall over then walk up to him and shoot him again -- that's murder, and
>will be prosecuted. [Source: course content -- AZ CCW course]

You state that what I said is flat out wrong and then proceed to
provide a lot of verbiage indicating that I'm right. Which is it?

On Dec 19, 4:48=A0pm, Mark & Juanita <[email protected]> wrote:
> [email protected] wrote:
> > On Sat, 19 Dec 2009 10:37:55 -0700, Mark & Juanita
> > <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >>[email protected] wrote:
>
> >>> On Fri, 18 Dec 2009 17:18:41 -0500, [email protected] wrote:
>
> >>... snip
>
> >>>>Then they can relase the perp and tell him to try again. =A0My second
> >>>>line of defense is loaded with 6 rounds and will probably do more har=
m
> >>>>to the perp than any insect spray...
>
> >>>>John
>
> >>> Many people don't realize that "Castle Doctrine" isn't always a
> >>> license to do whatever you please with impunity. In fact, it actually
> >>> imposes some restrictions that wouldn't be there without it. It also
> >>> varies from place to place. The Castle Doctrine in two different
> >>> states may be very different. In most states, it does not allow for
> >>> more than "reasonable force" to be used. If you could stop somebody b=
y
> >>> shooting them in the leg, you might find yourself in deep trouble of
> >>> you decide it's more fun to shoot them in the head.
>
> >> =A0That statement is flat out wrong. =A0First of all, once you have be=
en
> >> =A0place
> >>in a situation where deadly force is necessary, the idea that choosing
> >>area
> >>of the perp to hit is ludicrous. =A0The person placed in such a situati=
on is
> >>going to be aiming for center of mass -- adrenalin and stress aren't go=
ing
> >>to provide the luxury of calmly selected shot placement. =A0Therefore, =
no
> >>determination of whether the aggrieved homeowner should have aimed to
> >>shoot the perp in the leg vs. killing the perp is going to be assessed.
>
> >> =A0However, the over-riding guidance is that the justification is "sho=
ot to
> >>stop". =A0It is legal to fire multiple rounds until the perp falls over=
and
> >>stops his aggression. =A0It is NOT legal to fire multiple rounds, have =
the
> >>perp fall over then walk up to him and shoot him again -- that's murder=
,
> >>and
> >>will be prosecuted. =A0[Source: course content -- AZ CCW course]
>
> > You state that what I said is flat out wrong and then proceed to
> > provide a lot of verbiage indicating that I'm right. Which is it?
>
> =A0 The part where you say, "If you could stop somebody by shooting them =
in
> the leg, you might find yourself in deep trouble of you decide it's more =
fun
> to shoot them in the head." =A0In this sentence, you imply that a person
> confronted in a situation in which the Castle Doctrine applies would be
> expected to select shot placement (leg vs. head) depending upon the
> circumstance. =A0The fact is that once a person has judged that use of de=
adly
> force is needed (just to be clear here, the moment you point a firearm at
> another person implies intent to use deadly force), it doesn't matter wha=
t
> part of the perp you hit -- you are using deadly force. =A0Your statement
> further implies that if the person using deadly force could pre-determine
> that shooting the perp in the leg would stop them, then any other shot
> placement would be criminal. =A0In reality, once you start firing at a pe=
rp,
> you are engaged in the use of deadly force, you are justified to fire and
> keep firing at the perp so long as you feel you are still in danger (i.e.=
,
> up to the point where the perp stops). =A0Further, my point was that once=
the
> perp has stopped, you have achieved the objective for the use of deadly
> force and must then also stop. =A0If the perp dies as a result of his
> aggression and your use of deadly force, that is not a criminal act on yo=
ur
> part. =A0Your statement implies that if it was determined you could have =
shot
> him in the leg to stop him but hit him elsewhere then you would be held
> criminally liable -- that is what is plain wrong.
>
> --
>
> There is never a situation where having more rounds is a disadvantage
>
> Rob Leatham

I think this can boiled down to a simple thought.

If you are in a close quarters conflict, requiring force, the first
priority is to stop the son-of-a-bitch. Not pick legs, arms, heads,
or toes. That usually calls for a dead-center torso shot.

RonB

On Sat, 19 Dec 2009 09:32:49 -0500, "J. Clarke"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>[email protected] wrote:
>> On Fri, 18 Dec 2009 18:46:59 -0500, "J. Clarke"
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>> Matt wrote:
>>>> [email protected] wrote:
>>>>> On Fri, 18 Dec 2009 10:41:31 -0800 (PST), "[email protected]"
>>>>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Dec 18, 12:20 pm, [email protected] wrote:
>>>>>>> On Fri, 18 Dec 2009 18:04:53 GMT, notbob <[email protected]>
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 2009-12-18, Lew Hodgett <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> The wasp spray temporarily blinds an attacker until they get
>>>>>>>>> to the hospital for an antidote.
>>>>>>>> No doubt! In fact, probably works faster/better on ppl than on
>>>>>>>> real wasps.
>>>>>>>> nb
>>>>>>> The resulting lawsuit will hurt you a lot more than you hurt the
>>>>>>> attacker.
>>>>>> That's why you need the proper application of a shotgun too.
>>>>>> Living in a state that has accepted the Castle Doctrine helps.
>>>>>
>>>>> The castle doctrine doesn't protect you from lawsuits, or from
>>>>> violation of federal law. Spraying someone with bug spray is a
>>>>> violation of federal law, and is also illegal in many localities.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> DAGS on "wasp spray for protection" (without the quotes), and you'll
>>>> find numerous articles which state just that, and information that
>>>> indicates that pepper spray is actually more effective and longer
>>>> lasting. So while wasp spray sounds good, it's really not a good
>>>> idea.
>>>
>>> Uh, is it lawful to spray someone with pepper spray?
>>>
>>> As for spraying someone with bug spray being a violation of Federal
>>> law, I'd like to see an example of someone being successfully
>>> prosecuted under Federal law for dousing an assailant with bug spray.
>>>
>>> In point of fact anything you do may result in a lawsuit, including
>>> the use of pepper spray.
>>
>> Except of course that the manufacturer of the pepper spray will stand
>> behind its certification that it will cause no permanent harm.
>
>And of course we all know that manufacturers of products are credible
>witnesses regarding their safety (can you say "Pinto").
>

I don't think you understand the point.

>> The
>> courts, criminal and civil, all take that into account. Many state and
>> local laws specify what is "legal" pepper spray and declare all other
>> substances illegal to use for self defense.
>
>Please provide an example of a state law that says that it is prohibited to
>_use_ any specific substance for self defense. The ones that I have seen
>regulate sale or possession, not use. I have never heard of any law which
>enumerates what is and is not an acceptable means of self-defense.
>

Please provide an example of a state that doesn't have a definition
for pepper spray used in self defense and what it can contain.

>>> Just remember, "It is better to be tried by 12 than carried by 6".
>>
>> I just love it when someone thinks the law will be applied the way
>> THEY think makes sense. They are invariably wrong, but theior theories
>> make for entertaining reading.
>
>So you're saying that it's better to be dead than to be tried for dousing an
>assailant with bug spray? If so then quite frankly you're a damned fool.

I'm saying you haven't even the beginning of a clue on this subject.
Trying to move the goalposts isn't working for you, either.

"J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>>> Uh, Bub, (my Dad's sister's nickname for him was "Bub" by the
>>> way--never did
>>> tell me the story that went with it), it's rhetoric like that that
>>> scares the elderly maiden ladies in pants who write our laws. Do be
>>> kind enough to
>>> tone it down. Heck, some of them get scared when you tell them what
>>> the cop
>>> who taught the class that was required in order to get a CCW told
>>> you.
>>>
>>
>> What class?
>
> The one that the law says that you have to take. Do understand that
> everyone does not live in the same state you do.


Aren't we lucky, it would get very crowded. Then again, I wouldn't mind
having Montana to myself. In any case, it was a rhetorical question as I'm
well aware of the requirements in other states.

On Sat, 19 Dec 2009 10:01:12 -0500, "J. Clarke"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>[email protected] wrote:
>> On Fri, 18 Dec 2009 19:48:20 -0600, krw <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>> On Fri, 18 Dec 2009 13:48:33 -0500, [email protected] wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Fri, 18 Dec 2009 10:41:31 -0800 (PST), "[email protected]"
>>>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Dec 18, 12:20 pm, [email protected] wrote:
>>>>>> On Fri, 18 Dec 2009 18:04:53 GMT, notbob <[email protected]>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>> On 2009-12-18, Lew Hodgett <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The wasp spray temporarily blinds an attacker until they get to
>>>>>>>> the hospital for an antidote.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> No doubt! In fact, probably works faster/better on ppl than on
>>>>>>> real wasps.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> nb
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The resulting lawsuit will hurt you a lot more than you hurt the
>>>>>> attacker.
>>>>>
>>>>> That's why you need the proper application of a shotgun too.
>>>>> Living in a state that has accepted the Castle Doctrine helps.
>>>>
>>>> The castle doctrine doesn't protect you from lawsuits, or from
>>>> violation of federal law. Spraying someone with bug spray is a
>>>> violation of federal law, and is also illegal in many localities.
>>>
>>> The proper application of the shotgun does protect you from said law
>>> suit, though.
>>
>> Guess again. If the person you shoot has a family, you are still on
>> the hook. You'll be putting his kids through college after you buy
>> them a nice home to live in.
>
>Maybe, depending on the jurisdiction, the circumstances, and the jury.
>
>You act like it's better to be dead than to be sued. If that is the case
>for you then I pity you.

You sure know how to add 2 and 2 to get 22.

On Dec 23, 5:00=A0pm, "J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote:
> Father Haskell wrote:
> > On Dec 18, 1:52 am, "LDosser" <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> "Lew Hodgett" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> >>news:[email protected]...
>
> >>> SFWIW, passing along as requested
>
> >>> Lew
> >>> -----------------------------------------------
> >>> Wasp Spray
>
> >> Good idea, but unlike the wasps the recipient may still be on its
> >> feed and angry. Best have a plan on what to do next. At home it
> >> would be grab the shotgun.
>
> > Most insecticides are chemical variants of military
> > nerve agents, and work by interfering with neurotransmitters.
> > Wasp spray has a good chance of working, so long as
> > you don't care about any possible long term toxic effects.
>
> Most wasp spray is based on a pyrethroid of one kind or another. =A0

Depends where you're buying. Supermarket grade insecticides
are pyrethrin or permethrin, regardless of target species. Great,
because they're near idiot proof and hence less likely to draw
a lawsuit. Wide spectrum, they kill everything on six legs,
just not any particular species very well (maybe beneficial
hymenoptera), with the synthetic permethrins marginally
more effective.

What was in the wasp spray 30 years ago? Worked
damned near as quick as nuking them.

> In general
> pyrethroids have very low toxicity to humans--some are approved for treat=
ing
> clothing to provide insect protection. =A0The real knockdown power isn't =
in
> the insecticide anyway, it's the mineral spirits--squirt a wasp with WD-4=
0
> and it drops just as fast and doesn't usually get back up.

Chemcal potentiators are almost always included. Straight
pyrethrins are more like a temporary anaesthetic. Potentiators
are the coup de gras.

On Dec 18, 12:20=A0pm, [email protected] wrote:
> On Fri, 18 Dec 2009 18:04:53 GMT, notbob <[email protected]> wrote:
> >On 2009-12-18, Lew Hodgett <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >> The wasp spray temporarily blinds an attacker until they =A0get to the
> >> hospital for an antidote.
>
> >No doubt! =A0In fact, probably works faster/better on ppl than on real
> >wasps. =A0
>
> >nb
>
> The resulting lawsuit will hurt you a lot more than you hurt the
> attacker.

That's why you need the proper application of a shotgun too. Living
in a state that has accepted the Castle Doctrine helps.

J. Clarke wrote:

> talk to a lawyer experienced in your jurisdiction before acting.

The asshole, in thought and deed, who brought you to the dilemma in the
first place ...

--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 10/22/08
KarlC@ (the obvious)

On Sat, 19 Dec 2009 09:49:20 -0600, krw <[email protected]> wrote:

>On Sat, 19 Dec 2009 09:08:35 -0500, [email protected] wrote:
>
>>On Fri, 18 Dec 2009 19:48:20 -0600, krw <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>>On Fri, 18 Dec 2009 13:48:33 -0500, [email protected] wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Fri, 18 Dec 2009 10:41:31 -0800 (PST), "[email protected]"
>>>><[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>On Dec 18, 12:20 pm, [email protected] wrote:
>>>>>> On Fri, 18 Dec 2009 18:04:53 GMT, notbob <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>> >On 2009-12-18, Lew Hodgett <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> >> The wasp spray temporarily blinds an attacker until they  get to the
>>>>>> >> hospital for an antidote.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> >No doubt!  In fact, probably works faster/better on ppl than on real
>>>>>> >wasps.  
>>>>>>
>>>>>> >nb
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The resulting lawsuit will hurt you a lot more than you hurt the
>>>>>> attacker.
>>>>>
>>>>>That's why you need the proper application of a shotgun too. Living
>>>>>in a state that has accepted the Castle Doctrine helps.
>>>>
>>>>The castle doctrine doesn't protect you from lawsuits, or from
>>>>violation of federal law. Spraying someone with bug spray is a
>>>>violation of federal law, and is also illegal in many localities.
>>>
>>>The proper application of the shotgun does protect you from said law
>>>suit, though.
>>
>>Guess again. If the person you shoot has a family, you are still on
>>the hook. You'll be putting his kids through college after you buy
>>them a nice home to live in.
>
>As others here have implied, you're full of shit.

Feel free to be wrong. Parents, spouses, siblings and children of
people who die file suits for "wrongful death" every day of the week.

On Sat, 19 Dec 2009 09:08:35 -0500, [email protected] wrote:

>On Fri, 18 Dec 2009 19:48:20 -0600, krw <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>On Fri, 18 Dec 2009 13:48:33 -0500, [email protected] wrote:
>>
>>>On Fri, 18 Dec 2009 10:41:31 -0800 (PST), "[email protected]"
>>><[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Dec 18, 12:20 pm, [email protected] wrote:
>>>>> On Fri, 18 Dec 2009 18:04:53 GMT, notbob <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>> >On 2009-12-18, Lew Hodgett <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> >> The wasp spray temporarily blinds an attacker until they  get to the
>>>>> >> hospital for an antidote.
>>>>>
>>>>> >No doubt!  In fact, probably works faster/better on ppl than on real
>>>>> >wasps.  
>>>>>
>>>>> >nb
>>>>>
>>>>> The resulting lawsuit will hurt you a lot more than you hurt the
>>>>> attacker.
>>>>
>>>>That's why you need the proper application of a shotgun too. Living
>>>>in a state that has accepted the Castle Doctrine helps.
>>>
>>>The castle doctrine doesn't protect you from lawsuits, or from
>>>violation of federal law. Spraying someone with bug spray is a
>>>violation of federal law, and is also illegal in many localities.
>>
>>The proper application of the shotgun does protect you from said law
>>suit, though.
>
>Guess again. If the person you shoot has a family, you are still on
>the hook. You'll be putting his kids through college after you buy
>them a nice home to live in.

As others here have implied, you're full of shit.

On Tue, 22 Dec 2009 02:54:45 -0800, the infamous "LDosser"
<[email protected]> scrawled the following:

>"HeyBub" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>> LDosser wrote:
>>>>> The castle doctrine doesn't protect you from lawsuits, or from
>>>>> violation of federal law. Spraying someone with bug spray is a
>>>>> violation of federal law, and is also illegal in many localities.
>>>>
>>>> The proper application of the shotgun does protect you from said law
>>>> suit, though.
>>>
>>>
>>> Only if you kill all the relatives and maybe even his livestock.
>>
>> Absolutely not true for all states. In some states the version of "Castle
>> Doctrine" in place prohibits civil suits for wrongful death or injury.
>>
>> If you would provide your home state (instead of posting via an
>> anonymizer), I can tell you whether immunity from civil liability is
>> active where you live.
>>
>
>Didn't realize I was anonomyzed - Oregon.

Hello, fellow Webfoot! (LJ, from Grass Pants, OR)

--
REMEMBER: The sooner you fall behind,
the more time you'll have to catch up!

On 2009-12-18, Lew Hodgett <[email protected]> wrote:

> The wasp spray temporarily blinds an attacker until they get to the
> hospital for an antidote.

No doubt! In fact, probably works faster/better on ppl than on real
wasps.

nb

Lew Hodgett wrote:
> SFWIW, passing along as requested
>
> Lew
> -----------------------------------------------
> Wasp Spray
>
> A friend who is a receptionist in a church in a high risk area was
> concerned about someone coming into the office on Monday to rob
> them when they were counting the collection.

[snip]

>
> If you're looking for protection, Glinka says look to the spray.
>
> "That's going to give you a chance to call the police, maybe get
> out."
>
> Maybe even save a life.
>
> Might want to share this with all the people in your life.

Wasp spray? Why not hair spray? Why not have the church receptionist pull
out her Bible and invite the gremlin to pray with her?

If she's vulnerable, she should keep a GUN in her desk and SHOOT anybody who
walks in that smells funny.

Wasp spray, whistles, stun guns, and other claptrap merely irritate a person
who's irrational, doped-up, or a terrorist anyway. Best to just blow their
furry butts to Kingdom Come and be done with it.

Remember the squint who walked in to a Colorado Springs mega-church last
year bent on killing as many people as possible. A nice little lady greeter
pulled out her heater and canceled the scrot's ticket before he could do any
more harm (he had already killed a couple of people at another religious
property). She got a medal instead of a wreath.

Police? Remember the gun-nut's mantra: "When seconds count, the police are
just minutes away!"

LDosser wrote:
>>> The castle doctrine doesn't protect you from lawsuits, or from
>>> violation of federal law. Spraying someone with bug spray is a
>>> violation of federal law, and is also illegal in many localities.
>>
>> The proper application of the shotgun does protect you from said law
>> suit, though.
>
>
> Only if you kill all the relatives and maybe even his livestock.

Absolutely not true for all states. In some states the version of "Castle
Doctrine" in place prohibits civil suits for wrongful death or injury.

If you would provide your home state (instead of posting via an anonymizer),
I can tell you whether immunity from civil liability is active where you
live.

J. Clarke wrote:
> HeyBub wrote:
>> J. Clarke wrote:
>>> HeyBub wrote:
>>>> LDosser wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The OJ case being one of the most publicized examples.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I didn't know Nichole, and squeeze, attacked OJ in his house. I
>>>>>> missed that part.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> No, but OJ was sued for wrongful death and lost after being found
>>>>> Innocent of the killing by a Jury. If you gun down a perp, the
>>>>> prosecutor may choose not to charge you with anything, but the
>>>>> perp's relatives may choose to sue you for wrongful death and Win.
>>>>
>>>> True, maybe. Some forms of the "Castle Doctrine" immunity from
>>>> civil suits include ANY place you have a legal right to be, not
>>>> just your home (car, shopping mall, amusement park, movie theatre,
>>>> whore house, etc.).
>>>
>>> The thing is though for the Castle Doctrine to apply it has to be
>>> within judicial notice that you were acting in self-defense, and
>>> absent your being tried and acquitted on a criminal charge the only
>>> way for that judicial notice to be established is to go through a
>>> civil trial.
>>
>> I'm not sure how things work in other states. In mine, the first
>> thing that happens is a finding by the Medical Examiner that the
>> death was a homicide (killing of one human by another). ALL homicides
>> are referred to a Grand Jury - with our without charges, such as
>> murder, manslaughter, etc. If the Grand Jury determines there was a
>> righteous shoot, they will return a No Bill.
>>
>> A "No Bill" by a grand jury IS a judicial finding.
>
> But is it a finding of self-defense?

No, it's not. Still, the introduction of the No Bill is a huge hurdle for
the plaintiff to overcome.

J. Clarke wrote:
>>
>> Remember the squint who walked in to a Colorado Springs mega-church
>> last year bent on killing as many people as possible. A nice little
>> lady greeter pulled out her heater and canceled the scrot's ticket
>> before he could do any more harm (he had already killed a couple of
>> people at another religious property). She got a medal instead of a
>> wreath.
>>
>> Police? Remember the gun-nut's mantra: "When seconds count, the
>> police are just minutes away!"
>
> Uh, Bub, (my Dad's sister's nickname for him was "Bub" by the
> way--never did tell me the story that went with it), it's rhetoric
> like that that scares the elderly maiden ladies in pants who write
> our laws. Do be kind enough to tone it down. Heck, some of them get
> scared when you tell them what the cop who taught the class that was
> required in order to get a CCW told you.

Your point is well taken.

I just get exercised when people entrust their lives to government-funded
Dial-A-Prayer (911).

Maybe we could come up with a menu of alternatives to an attack, along with
the probability of you living through the episode:

* Invite the goat-grabber to pray with you: 1%
* Feign a fainting spell: 5%
* Run away: 6%
* Yell like somebody has a grip on you: 10%
* Struggle and fight back: 12%
* Squirt 'em with pepper spray: 15%
* Squirt 'em with wasp spray: 20%
* Sic a Rottweiler on them: 40%
* Shoot the mope in the eye with a .44: 100%

We could title it: "Do You Feel Lucky?"

J. Clarke wrote:
>
> You clearly are incapable of following a conversation and when it is
> suggested to you that your style of argument does more harm than good
> you simply go on the attack. I find reviewing your posting history
> that you have made one post in the past six months that actually has
> anything to do with woodworking. That being the case I'm not wasting
> any more time on your bombastic drivel, slick.
>

True, I've not made many (if any) posts on woodworking. I follow the
conversations here and learn from my betters on the subject. Still, when
some ELSE posts something that is absurd, wrong, or just plain insane, I'm
not about to let it stand unchallenged. I'm sure your research recognized
that.

Now the original topic started off with methods for protection. Someone
suggested bug spray. I agreed. Then, in succession, you brought up guns,
embarrassment, humor, freedom of speech, and the inability to follow a train
of thought. Then, either in a fit of pique or an example of ADD, you
interject that I'm an idiot in a completely unrelated thread.

After knocking on several doors and unable to gain entry to the halls of
knowledge, you give up an retire. Sorry to see you go; it's been fun.

J. Clarke wrote:
> HeyBub wrote:
>> Mark & Juanita wrote:
>>>
>>> It would probably be tied to intent. If you got an avaricious
>>> prosecutor whose view is that it is up to the police to protect the
>>> public and he/she wanted to make a case of it, if he/she could show
>>> that you had the bug spray *specifically* to use for self-defense
>>> (i.e., intent), then he/she might go after you for that. If on the
>>> other hand, you grabbed the bug spray just because it was the
>>> closest thing to hand and you were in danger, you were simply using
>>> the most expedient article available for your self-defense.
>>>
>>
>> (nudge-nudge, wink-wink)
>
> You really want a gun ban don't you?

Me? Hell no! I carry a Glock 9mm and a .22 BUG (Back-up gun). I've got
either a Glock 10mm or .40 cal stashed in almost every room. We won't even
talk about the car. I've also got some armament that can "reach out and
touch someone."

I live in a fairly backward state (Texas) that won't allow open carry or
guns on campus.

I hold that all citizens should demonstrate acceptable marksmanship before
being allowed to vote or own taxable property and that the laws on
justifiable homicide be relaxed to include people who smell funny.

"Matt" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> [email protected] wrote:
>> On Fri, 18 Dec 2009 10:41:31 -0800 (PST), "[email protected]"
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>> On Dec 18, 12:20 pm, [email protected] wrote:
>>>> On Fri, 18 Dec 2009 18:04:53 GMT, notbob <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>> On 2009-12-18, Lew Hodgett <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>> The wasp spray temporarily blinds an attacker until they get to the
>>>>>> hospital for an antidote.
>>>>> No doubt! In fact, probably works faster/better on ppl than on real
>>>>> wasps. nb
>>>> The resulting lawsuit will hurt you a lot more than you hurt the
>>>> attacker.
>>> That's why you need the proper application of a shotgun too. Living
>>> in a state that has accepted the Castle Doctrine helps.
>>
>> The castle doctrine doesn't protect you from lawsuits, or from
>> violation of federal law. Spraying someone with bug spray is a
>> violation of federal law, and is also illegal in many localities.
>
> DAGS on "wasp spray for protection" (without the quotes), and you'll find
> numerous articles which state just that, and information that indicates
> that pepper spray is actually more effective and longer lasting. So while
> wasp spray sounds good, it's really not a good idea.


The reasoning behind the wasp spray is that it has a longer range. Don't
need to get as close. The pepper spry is likely more effective ( ever rubbed
your eye without thinking while slicing jalapinos. If you havnt, don't
GHIKT) but has an effective range of about three feet. The wasp spray is
good for ten.
>
> Matt

"Mark & Juanita" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> The part where you say, "If you could stop somebody by shooting them in
> the leg, you might find yourself in deep trouble of you decide it's more
> fun
> to shoot them in the head." In this sentence, you imply that a person
> confronted in a situation in which the Castle Doctrine applies would be
> expected to select shot placement (leg vs. head) depending upon the
> circumstance. The fact is that once a person has judged that use of
> deadly
> force is needed (just to be clear here, the moment you point a firearm at
> another person implies intent to use deadly force), it doesn't matter what
> part of the perp you hit -- you are using deadly force. Your statement
> further implies that if the person using deadly force could pre-determine
> that shooting the perp in the leg would stop them, then any other shot
> placement would be criminal. In reality, once you start firing at a perp,
> you are engaged in the use of deadly force, you are justified to fire and
> keep firing at the perp so long as you feel you are still in danger (i.e.,
> up to the point where the perp stops). Further, my point was that once
> the
> perp has stopped, you have achieved the objective for the use of deadly
> force and must then also stop. If the perp dies as a result of his
> aggression and your use of deadly force, that is not a criminal act on
> your
> part. Your statement implies that if it was determined you could have
> shot
> him in the leg to stop him but hit him elsewhere then you would be held
> criminally liable -- that is what is plain wrong.
>
> --
Don't waste your time. This "Salty" twit is an ignorant troll. He has no
idea what he is talking about and has no want for and intelligent
discussion. I plonked him a while ago.

"LDosser" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> "krw" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> On Fri, 18 Dec 2009 13:48:33 -0500, [email protected] wrote:
>>
>>>On Fri, 18 Dec 2009 10:41:31 -0800 (PST), "[email protected]"
>>><[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Dec 18, 12:20 pm, [email protected] wrote:
>>>>> On Fri, 18 Dec 2009 18:04:53 GMT, notbob <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>> >On 2009-12-18, Lew Hodgett <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> >> The wasp spray temporarily blinds an attacker until they get to the
>>>>> >> hospital for an antidote.
>>>>>
>>>>> >No doubt! In fact, probably works faster/better on ppl than on real
>>>>> >wasps.
>>>>>
>>>>> >nb
>>>>>
>>>>> The resulting lawsuit will hurt you a lot more than you hurt the
>>>>> attacker.
>>>>
>>>>That's why you need the proper application of a shotgun too. Living
>>>>in a state that has accepted the Castle Doctrine helps.
>>>
>>>The castle doctrine doesn't protect you from lawsuits, or from
>>>violation of federal law. Spraying someone with bug spray is a
>>>violation of federal law, and is also illegal in many localities.
>>
>> The proper application of the shotgun does protect you from said law
>> suit, though.
>
>
> Only if you kill all the relatives and maybe even his livestock.

Not in this state. In a self defense shooting, you cannot be sued. Many
states are that way. They consider that benifitting from criminal activity,
which is, in itself, a crime.
In addition, here in Washington, if you are charged with a crime and it is
ultimately found to be self defense, you are entitled to reimbursement for
legal fees and lost wages. The laws reflect the belief that one should not
be punished for surviving.

Lee Michaels wrote:
> "HeyBub" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> [email protected] wrote:
>>>
>>> Many people don't realize that "Castle Doctrine" isn't always a
>>> license to do whatever you please with impunity. In fact, it
>>> actually imposes some restrictions that wouldn't be there without
>>> it. It also varies from place to place. The Castle Doctrine in two
>>> different states may be very different. In most states, it does not
>>> allow for more than "reasonable force" to be used. If you could
>>> stop somebody by shooting them in the leg, you might find yourself
>>> in deep trouble of you decide it's more fun to shoot them in the
>>> head.
>>
>> You are correct that unlimited force is not sanctioned but almost
>> always includes the use of "deadly force." The underlying rationale
>> behind the theory is the presumption that the goblin is there to
>> kill you. The more common "Castle Doctrine" elements involve:
>>
>> a. No need to retreat,
>> b. Use of whatever force, including deadly force, is necessary to
>> stop the attack,
>> c. Absolute immunity from civil damage claims.
>> d. (Often) is operative at any place you have a legal right to be
>> (home, car, office, etc.)
>> e. Five states (Iowa, New Hampshire, New Mexico, Arizona, and D.C.)
>> have no semblance of a Castle Doctrine. Other states have varying
>> incarnations. "Reasonable force" is NOT contingent on the damage
>> inflicted.
>> Reasonable force relies entirely on the method of force used and
>> sometimes the result obtained. There is no legal difference between
>> shooting someone in the head and shooting them in the foot (assuming
>> both live or both die). You NEVER shoot to wound - or to pull a Tom Mix
>> and shoot the knife
>> out of the attacker's hand. You ALWAYS shoot to "stop the attack."
>> You ALWAYS aim for the big things in life - the torso. Further, if
>> you kill the attacker, your assertion that he screamed "I'm gonna
>> kill you, you fucker! It's potatoes for you!" will go unchallenged.
>>
> A local LEO made this distinction for me.
>
> If you shoot somebody breaking into your house, make sure he falls in
> the house, not outside of the house. Outside, you are busted big time
> and will do time. Inside, it is OK. You were just defending your home.
>
> And it may be that way, but what sane person is going to let a whacko
> invade their home before you shoot? I guess you have to bide your
> time and time the shot perfectly. Or scream and yell and scare them
> away.
> I am very happy that I have never had to make a decision like this.

Your LEO is an idiot. You have the absolute right of self-defense no matter
whether the squint has his hands around your throat or is standing a block
away shooting at you with a rifle.

You may, too, have heard the silliness about "dragging the body inside." You
better come up with a good explanation for the blood trail while you're
dragging the corpse.

Robatoy wrote:

> I will be sure to quote and consider all that as I blow the
> motherfucker to his next life.
>
> I just love all the pigeon-holing, categorizing and all that other
> prejudicial banter that goes on in these tough-guy threads.
> Most of you here would shit your pants as a perp wanders into your
> house and allow the perp to make the life-and-death decisions for you.
> Others in this group, and you know who you are, would uncork a bottle
> of whammo on the poor bastard.
> I'm on record for despising senseless killing, being it through bad
> medicine or war, but I assure you that it would take quite a crew to
> clean up after I was done with an intruder....and it wouldn't be
> because I shit myself.

As I always tell my warm, fuzzy friends when the subject comes up ...
"You are entitled to your beliefs, however, should you ever turn to a
life of crime, stay away from my house."

--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 10/22/08
KarlC@ (the obvious)

HeyBub wrote:

... snip
> You are correct that unlimited force is not sanctioned but almost always
> includes the use of "deadly force." The underlying rationale behind the
> theory is the presumption that the goblin is there to kill you. The more
> common "Castle Doctrine" elements involve:
>
> a. No need to retreat,
> b. Use of whatever force, including deadly force, is necessary to stop the
> attack,
> c. Absolute immunity from civil damage claims.
> d. (Often) is operative at any place you have a legal right to be (home,
> car, office, etc.)
> e. Five states (Iowa, New Hampshire, New Mexico, Arizona, and D.C.) have
> no semblance of a Castle Doctrine. Other states have varying incarnations.
>

Don't know about the other states, but that is NOT true for AZ:
<http://74.125.155.132/custom?q=cache:jb_JG7TnWq0J:www.azdps.gov/Services/Concealed_Weapons/documents/instructors_ccw_legal.pdf+%22castle+doctrine%22&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us&client=google-
coop-np>

Castle doctrine has been codified since 2006



... snip
--

There is never a situation where having more rounds is a disadvantage

Rob Leatham

[email protected] wrote:

> On Fri, 18 Dec 2009 17:18:41 -0500, [email protected] wrote:
>
... snip
>>
>>Then they can relase the perp and tell him to try again. My second
>>line of defense is loaded with 6 rounds and will probably do more harm
>>to the perp than any insect spray...
>>
>>John
>
> Many people don't realize that "Castle Doctrine" isn't always a
> license to do whatever you please with impunity. In fact, it actually
> imposes some restrictions that wouldn't be there without it. It also
> varies from place to place. The Castle Doctrine in two different
> states may be very different. In most states, it does not allow for
> more than "reasonable force" to be used. If you could stop somebody by
> shooting them in the leg, you might find yourself in deep trouble of
> you decide it's more fun to shoot them in the head.

That statement is flat out wrong. First of all, once you have been place
in a situation where deadly force is necessary, the idea that choosing area
of the perp to hit is ludicrous. The person placed in such a situation is
going to be aiming for center of mass -- adrenalin and stress aren't going
to provide the luxury of calmly selected shot placement. Therefore, no
determination of whether the aggrieved homeowner should have aimed to shoot
the perp in the leg vs. killing the perp is going to be assessed.

However, the over-riding guidance is that the justification is "shoot to
stop". It is legal to fire multiple rounds until the perp falls over and
stops his aggression. It is NOT legal to fire multiple rounds, have the
perp fall over then walk up to him and shoot him again -- that's murder, and
will be prosecuted. [Source: course content -- AZ CCW course]


--

There is never a situation where having more rounds is a disadvantage

Rob Leatham

J. Clarke wrote:
>>>
>>> You really want a gun ban don't you?
>>
>> Me? Hell no! I carry a Glock 9mm and a .22 BUG (Back-up gun). I've
>> got either a Glock 10mm or .40 cal stashed in almost every room. We
>> won't even talk about the car. I've also got some armament that can
>> "reach out and touch someone."
>>
>> I live in a fairly backward state (Texas) that won't allow open carry
>> or guns on campus.
>>
>> I hold that all citizens should demonstrate acceptable marksmanship
>> before being allowed to vote or own taxable property and that the
>> laws on justifiable homicide be relaxed to include people who smell
>> funny.
>
> If you don't want a gun ban then stop using inflammatory rhetoric
> that makes you look like the sort of nutcake that the gun control
> advocates want people to believe are typical firearms owners. You're
> playing into a stereotype here.

Because I offered a hint about BUG SPRAY? You raised up on your hinder legs
over BUG SPRAY? You accuse me of outrageous pro-gun comments when we were
talking about BUG SPRAY? Guns weren't mentioned until you brought it up.
Listen up, slick, there's a big difference between a firearm and BUG SPRAY -
even a pro-gun nutter like me knows that. As to stereotype, I don't think
there IS a stereotype for exterminators. Well, Tom Delay excepted.

>
> And before you say "freedom of speech" consider that every right
> carries with it a duty to use that right responsibly.

First, every "right" I have imposes a "duty" on the government, not me. If I
have a right to worship as I please, the state has a duty not to interfere.
If I have a "right" to freedom of speech, the government has a duty to not
impose unreasonable restrictions. For constitutional rights, the methodology
is called "strict scrutiny."

Second, "freedom of speech" (actually the "duty" to not suppress) applies
only to a government entity, not newsgroups.

[email protected] wrote:
>>
>> I don't think that you'll find that any statute anywhere in the US
>> requires you to shoot someone in the leg rather than the head. If
>> you shoot at all it's lethal force and when you put the police
>> marksmanship instructor on the stand he'll tell the court after you
>> gave the guy two in the chest and one in the head that you did
>> exactly what police officers are trained to do.
>
> Keep dreaming, if it makes you feel better.

Okay, I'll simplify: There is NO legal difference between shooting someone
in the foot or in the head, assuming that the subject lived or died in each
instance.

If the shooting is not justified, the shooter is guilty of either murder or
assault with a deadly weapon. The location of the bullet hole has no bearing
on the criminal charges.

[email protected] wrote:
>
> Pepper spray in a small space (typical room) may be just as bad for
> the sprayer as the sprayee. The stuff does create a certain amount of
> mist which can cover a larger area than you may want.
>
> Used outdoors and within a couple of feet of the target individual,
> pepper spray can be very effective.
>
> If I'm close enough to use pepper spray (directly in an intruder's
> face), I may opt for the D-cell MagLight instead - at least swinging
> the MagLight doesn't irritate my eyes...
>
> Maybe a Rottweiler as a guard dog instead of personally applied
> deterrents?

Your last suggestion, an attack dog, has a great deal of merit. Your other
two suggestions border on a death wish.

There are a significant number of people on whom pepper spray has no
effect - in particular most speed-freaks. Your next suggestion generates the
headline: "He brought a flashlight to a knife fight."

The only effective deterrent to an attack is a firearm. Period.

"J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> HeyBub wrote:
>> Lew Hodgett wrote:
>>> SFWIW, passing along as requested
>>>
>>> Lew
>>> -----------------------------------------------
>>> Wasp Spray
>>>
>>> A friend who is a receptionist in a church in a high risk area was
>>> concerned about someone coming into the office on Monday to rob
>>> them when they were counting the collection.
>>
>> [snip]
>>
>>>
>>> If you're looking for protection, Glinka says look to the spray.
>>>
>>> "That's going to give you a chance to call the police, maybe get
>>> out."
>>>
>>> Maybe even save a life.
>>>
>>> Might want to share this with all the people in your life.
>>
>> Wasp spray? Why not hair spray? Why not have the church receptionist
>> pull out her Bible and invite the gremlin to pray with her?
>>
>> If she's vulnerable, she should keep a GUN in her desk and SHOOT
>> anybody who walks in that smells funny.
>>
>> Wasp spray, whistles, stun guns, and other claptrap merely irritate a
>> person who's irrational, doped-up, or a terrorist anyway. Best to
>> just blow their furry butts to Kingdom Come and be done with it.
>>
>> Remember the squint who walked in to a Colorado Springs mega-church
>> last year bent on killing as many people as possible. A nice little
>> lady greeter pulled out her heater and canceled the scrot's ticket
>> before he could do any more harm (he had already killed a couple of
>> people at another religious property). She got a medal instead of a
>> wreath.
>>
>> Police? Remember the gun-nut's mantra: "When seconds count, the
>> police are just minutes away!"
>
> Uh, Bub, (my Dad's sister's nickname for him was "Bub" by the way--never
> did
> tell me the story that went with it), it's rhetoric like that that scares
> the elderly maiden ladies in pants who write our laws. Do be kind enough
> to
> tone it down. Heck, some of them get scared when you tell them what the
> cop
> who taught the class that was required in order to get a CCW told you.
>

What class?

[email protected] wrote:
>
> The castle doctrine doesn't protect you from lawsuits, or from
> violation of federal law. Spraying someone with bug spray is a
> violation of federal law, and is also illegal in many localities.

Not so. Many "castle doctrine" laws (it depends on the state) confer
absolute civil immunity. For example, the Texas law reads: "A defendant who
uses force or deadly force that is justified under Chapter 9 Penal Code, is
immune from civil liability for personal injury or death that results from
the use of force or deadly force..."

Every criminal law, including federal criminal law, must yield to the
"exigent circumstances" rule. If a life is at stake, it is not only
permitted to violate ANY criminal statute, it is meritorious to do so.

On Fri, 18 Dec 2009 19:48:20 -0600, krw <[email protected]> wrote:

>On Fri, 18 Dec 2009 13:48:33 -0500, [email protected] wrote:
>
>>On Fri, 18 Dec 2009 10:41:31 -0800 (PST), "[email protected]"
>><[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>>On Dec 18, 12:20 pm, [email protected] wrote:
>>>> On Fri, 18 Dec 2009 18:04:53 GMT, notbob <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>> >On 2009-12-18, Lew Hodgett <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> >> The wasp spray temporarily blinds an attacker until they  get to the
>>>> >> hospital for an antidote.
>>>>
>>>> >No doubt!  In fact, probably works faster/better on ppl than on real
>>>> >wasps.  
>>>>
>>>> >nb
>>>>
>>>> The resulting lawsuit will hurt you a lot more than you hurt the
>>>> attacker.
>>>
>>>That's why you need the proper application of a shotgun too. Living
>>>in a state that has accepted the Castle Doctrine helps.
>>
>>The castle doctrine doesn't protect you from lawsuits, or from
>>violation of federal law. Spraying someone with bug spray is a
>>violation of federal law, and is also illegal in many localities.
>
>The proper application of the shotgun does protect you from said law
>suit, though.

Guess again. If the person you shoot has a family, you are still on
the hook. You'll be putting his kids through college after you buy
them a nice home to live in.

On Sat, 19 Dec 2009 22:19:57 -0800, "LDosser" <[email protected]>
wrote:

><[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>> On Sat, 19 Dec 2009 09:49:20 -0600, krw <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>>On Sat, 19 Dec 2009 09:08:35 -0500, [email protected] wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Fri, 18 Dec 2009 19:48:20 -0600, krw <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>On Fri, 18 Dec 2009 13:48:33 -0500, [email protected] wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>On Fri, 18 Dec 2009 10:41:31 -0800 (PST), "[email protected]"
>>>>>><[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>On Dec 18, 12:20 pm, [email protected] wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Fri, 18 Dec 2009 18:04:53 GMT, notbob <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>>>> >On 2009-12-18, Lew Hodgett <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> >> The wasp spray temporarily blinds an attacker until they get to
>>>>>>>> >> the
>>>>>>>> >> hospital for an antidote.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> >No doubt! In fact, probably works faster/better on ppl than on real
>>>>>>>> >wasps.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> >nb
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The resulting lawsuit will hurt you a lot more than you hurt the
>>>>>>>> attacker.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>That's why you need the proper application of a shotgun too. Living
>>>>>>>in a state that has accepted the Castle Doctrine helps.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>The castle doctrine doesn't protect you from lawsuits, or from
>>>>>>violation of federal law. Spraying someone with bug spray is a
>>>>>>violation of federal law, and is also illegal in many localities.
>>>>>
>>>>>The proper application of the shotgun does protect you from said law
>>>>>suit, though.
>>>>
>>>>Guess again. If the person you shoot has a family, you are still on
>>>>the hook. You'll be putting his kids through college after you buy
>>>>them a nice home to live in.
>>>
>>>As others here have implied, you're full of shit.
>>
>> Feel free to be wrong. Parents, spouses, siblings and children of
>> people who die file suits for "wrongful death" every day of the week.
>>
>
>The OJ case being one of the most publicized examples.

I didn't know Nichole, and squeeze, attacked OJ in his house. I
missed that part.

On Dec 21, 12:11=A0pm, "J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote:
> CW wrote:
> > "LDosser" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> >news:[email protected]...
> >>>>> Feel free to be wrong. Parents, spouses, siblings and children of
> >>>>> people who die file suits for "wrongful death" every day of the
> >>>>> week.
>
> >>>> The OJ case being one of the most publicized examples.
>
> >>> I didn't know Nichole, and squeeze, attacked OJ in his house. =A0I
> >>> missed that part.
>
> >> No, but OJ was sued for wrongful death and lost after being found
> >> Innocent of the killing by a Jury. If you gun down a perp, the
> >> prosecutor may choose not to charge you with anything, but the
> >> perp's relatives may choose to sue you for wrongful death and Win.
>
> > Not in this state (Washington) and others that have laws to prevent
> > this.
>
> The specific wording of the Washington statute is: =A0"(1) No person in t=
he
> state shall be placed in legal jeopardy of any kind whatsoever for
> protecting by any reasonable means necessary, himself or herself, his or =
her
> family, or his or her real or personal property, or for coming to the aid=
of
> another who is in imminent danger of or the victim of assault, robbery,
> kidnapping, arson, burglary, rape, murder, or any other violent crime as
> defined in RCW 9.94A.030."
>
> The statute provides no non-judicial means for ascertaining whether a per=
son
> was "protectiing by any reasonable means necessary . . .". =A0So if you h=
ave
> not been tried in the criminal courts and acquitted on grounds of
> self-defense the relatives can still sue you and you still have to pay fo=
r a
> legal defense. =A0Further, unlike a criminal trial there is no specific
> provision that you are due compensation for a civil trial in which it is
> ascertained that you acted in self-defense. =A0So to actually obtain
> protection under the statute you have to persuade the district attorney t=
o
> bring criminal charges and go to court so you can get acquitted by reason=
of
> self defense. =A0It's going to be an uphill battle to persuade him to do
> that--generally DAs don't like to waste the state's money on cases that t=
hey
> know they are going to lose.
>
> If the statute provided, for example, that an affadavit from the district
> attorney stating that he did not bring charges because he was certain tha=
t
> you would be acquitted on grounds of self-defense would suffice as eviden=
ce
> that you did so then things might be different, but there appears to be n=
o
> such mechanism provided in the statute.

I will be sure to quote and consider all that as I blow the
motherfucker to his next life.

I just love all the pigeon-holing, categorizing and all that other
prejudicial banter that goes on in these tough-guy threads.
Most of you here would shit your pants as a perp wanders into your
house and allow the perp to make the life-and-death decisions for you.
Others in this group, and you know who you are, would uncork a bottle
of whammo on the poor bastard.
I'm on record for despising senseless killing, being it through bad
medicine or war, but I assure you that it would take quite a crew to
clean up after I was done with an intruder....and it wouldn't be
because I shit myself.

On Fri, 18 Dec 2009 15:31:53 -0700, Matt <[email protected]> wrote:

>[email protected] wrote:
>> On Fri, 18 Dec 2009 10:41:31 -0800 (PST), "[email protected]"
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>> On Dec 18, 12:20 pm, [email protected] wrote:
>>>> On Fri, 18 Dec 2009 18:04:53 GMT, notbob <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>> On 2009-12-18, Lew Hodgett <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>> The wasp spray temporarily blinds an attacker until they get to the
>>>>>> hospital for an antidote.
>>>>> No doubt! In fact, probably works faster/better on ppl than on real
>>>>> wasps.
>>>>> nb
>>>> The resulting lawsuit will hurt you a lot more than you hurt the
>>>> attacker.
>>> That's why you need the proper application of a shotgun too. Living
>>> in a state that has accepted the Castle Doctrine helps.
>>
>> The castle doctrine doesn't protect you from lawsuits, or from
>> violation of federal law. Spraying someone with bug spray is a
>> violation of federal law, and is also illegal in many localities.
>>
>
>DAGS on "wasp spray for protection" (without the quotes), and you'll
>find numerous articles which state just that, and information that
>indicates that pepper spray is actually more effective and longer
>lasting. So while wasp spray sounds good, it's really not a good idea.
>
>Matt

Pepper spray in a small space (typical room) may be just as bad for
the sprayer as the sprayee. The stuff does create a certain amount of
mist which can cover a larger area than you may want.

Used outdoors and within a couple of feet of the target individual,
pepper spray can be very effective.

If I'm close enough to use pepper spray (directly in an intruder's
face), I may opt for the D-cell MagLight instead - at least swinging
the MagLight doesn't irritate my eyes...

Maybe a Rottweiler as a guard dog instead of personally applied
deterrents?

John

On Fri, 18 Dec 2009 17:18:41 -0500, [email protected] wrote:

>On Fri, 18 Dec 2009 13:48:33 -0500, [email protected] wrote:
>
>>On Fri, 18 Dec 2009 10:41:31 -0800 (PST), "[email protected]"
>><[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>>On Dec 18, 12:20 pm, [email protected] wrote:
>>>> On Fri, 18 Dec 2009 18:04:53 GMT, notbob <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>> >On 2009-12-18, Lew Hodgett <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> >> The wasp spray temporarily blinds an attacker until they  get to the
>>>> >> hospital for an antidote.
>>>>
>>>> >No doubt!  In fact, probably works faster/better on ppl than on real
>>>> >wasps.  
>>>>
>>>> >nb
>>>>
>>>> The resulting lawsuit will hurt you a lot more than you hurt the
>>>> attacker.
>>>
>>>That's why you need the proper application of a shotgun too. Living
>>>in a state that has accepted the Castle Doctrine helps.
>>
>>The castle doctrine doesn't protect you from lawsuits, or from
>>violation of federal law. Spraying someone with bug spray is a
>>violation of federal law, and is also illegal in many localities.
>
>Then they can relase the perp and tell him to try again. My second
>line of defense is loaded with 6 rounds and will probably do more harm
>to the perp than any insect spray...
>
>John

Many people don't realize that "Castle Doctrine" isn't always a
license to do whatever you please with impunity. In fact, it actually
imposes some restrictions that wouldn't be there without it. It also
varies from place to place. The Castle Doctrine in two different
states may be very different. In most states, it does not allow for
more than "reasonable force" to be used. If you could stop somebody by
shooting them in the leg, you might find yourself in deep trouble of
you decide it's more fun to shoot them in the head.

LDosser wrote:

> "krw" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> On Sat, 19 Dec 2009 22:19:57 -0800, "LDosser" <[email protected]>
>> wrote:
... snip
>>
>> I didn't know Nichole, and squeeze, attacked OJ in his house. I
>> missed that part.
>
>
> No, but OJ was sued for wrongful death and lost after being found Innocent
> of the killing by a Jury. If you gun down a perp, the prosecutor may
> choose not to charge you with anything, but the perp's relatives may
> choose to sue you for wrongful death and Win.

The OJ case wouldn't be applicable as an example here because self-
defense was not an element of the case (at least not from OJ's frame of
reference).

--

There is never a situation where having more rounds is a disadvantage

Rob Leatham

<[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Fri, 18 Dec 2009 18:04:53 GMT, notbob <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>On 2009-12-18, Lew Hodgett <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>> The wasp spray temporarily blinds an attacker until they get to the
>>> hospital for an antidote.
>>
>>No doubt! In fact, probably works faster/better on ppl than on real
>>wasps.
>>
>>nb
>
> The resulting lawsuit will hurt you a lot more than you hurt the
> attacker.
>

Maybe some places but in Washington, if it was self defense, you can't be
sued.

On Fri, 18 Dec 2009 23:16:53 -0800, "LDosser" <[email protected]>
wrote:

>"krw" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>> On Fri, 18 Dec 2009 21:47:25 -0800, "LDosser" <[email protected]>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>"krw" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>news:[email protected]...
>>>> On Fri, 18 Dec 2009 13:48:33 -0500, [email protected] wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>On Fri, 18 Dec 2009 10:41:31 -0800 (PST), "[email protected]"
>>>>><[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>On Dec 18, 12:20 pm, [email protected] wrote:
>>>>>>> On Fri, 18 Dec 2009 18:04:53 GMT, notbob <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>>> >On 2009-12-18, Lew Hodgett <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> >> The wasp spray temporarily blinds an attacker until they get to
>>>>>>> >> the
>>>>>>> >> hospital for an antidote.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> >No doubt! In fact, probably works faster/better on ppl than on real
>>>>>>> >wasps.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> >nb
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The resulting lawsuit will hurt you a lot more than you hurt the
>>>>>>> attacker.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>That's why you need the proper application of a shotgun too. Living
>>>>>>in a state that has accepted the Castle Doctrine helps.
>>>>>
>>>>>The castle doctrine doesn't protect you from lawsuits, or from
>>>>>violation of federal law. Spraying someone with bug spray is a
>>>>>violation of federal law, and is also illegal in many localities.
>>>>
>>>> The proper application of the shotgun does protect you from said law
>>>> suit, though.
>>>
>>>
>>>Only if you kill all the relatives and maybe even his livestock.
>>
>> Are you always this dumb?
>
>
>Are you always this tongue in cheek impaired? Or have you just never seen
>the perp's relatives sue the victim?

Before I answer, just what am I answering; tongue in cheek, or a
serious question? You make no sense.

J. Clarke wrote:
> HeyBub wrote:
>> LDosser wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> The OJ case being one of the most publicized examples.
>>>>
>>>> I didn't know Nichole, and squeeze, attacked OJ in his house. I
>>>> missed that part.
>>>
>>>
>>> No, but OJ was sued for wrongful death and lost after being found
>>> Innocent of the killing by a Jury. If you gun down a perp, the
>>> prosecutor may choose not to charge you with anything, but the
>>> perp's relatives may choose to sue you for wrongful death and Win.
>>
>> True, maybe. Some forms of the "Castle Doctrine" immunity from civil
>> suits include ANY place you have a legal right to be, not just your
>> home (car, shopping mall, amusement park, movie theatre, whore house,
>> etc.).
>
> The thing is though for the Castle Doctrine to apply it has to be
> within judicial notice that you were acting in self-defense, and
> absent your being tried and acquitted on a criminal charge the only
> way for that judicial notice to be established is to go through a
> civil trial.

I'm not sure how things work in other states. In mine, the first thing that
happens is a finding by the Medical Examiner that the death was a homicide
(killing of one human by another). ALL homicides are referred to a Grand
Jury - with our without charges, such as murder, manslaughter, etc. If the
Grand Jury determines there was a righteous shoot, they will return a No
Bill.

A "No Bill" by a grand jury IS a judicial finding.

On Fri, 18 Dec 2009 13:48:33 -0500, [email protected] wrote:

>On Fri, 18 Dec 2009 10:41:31 -0800 (PST), "[email protected]"
><[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>On Dec 18, 12:20 pm, [email protected] wrote:
>>> On Fri, 18 Dec 2009 18:04:53 GMT, notbob <[email protected]> wrote:
>>> >On 2009-12-18, Lew Hodgett <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>> >> The wasp spray temporarily blinds an attacker until they  get to the
>>> >> hospital for an antidote.
>>>
>>> >No doubt!  In fact, probably works faster/better on ppl than on real
>>> >wasps.  
>>>
>>> >nb
>>>
>>> The resulting lawsuit will hurt you a lot more than you hurt the
>>> attacker.
>>
>>That's why you need the proper application of a shotgun too. Living
>>in a state that has accepted the Castle Doctrine helps.
>
>The castle doctrine doesn't protect you from lawsuits, or from
>violation of federal law. Spraying someone with bug spray is a
>violation of federal law, and is also illegal in many localities.

Then they can relase the perp and tell him to try again. My second
line of defense is loaded with 6 rounds and will probably do more harm
to the perp than any insect spray...

John

Mark & Juanita wrote:
>
> However, the over-riding guidance is that the justification is
> "shoot to stop". It is legal to fire multiple rounds until the perp
> falls over and stops his aggression. It is NOT legal to fire
> multiple rounds, have the perp fall over then walk up to him and
> shoot him again -- that's murder, and will be prosecuted. [Source:
> course content -- AZ CCW course]

"I walked over to kick the gun from his hand and he twitched. So, being in
fear for my life, discharged my weapon one more time."

RonB wrote:

> On Dec 19, 4:48 pm, Mark & Juanita <[email protected]> wrote:
>> [email protected] wrote:
... snip
>
> I think this can boiled down to a simple thought.
>
> If you are in a close quarters conflict, requiring force, the first
> priority is to stop the son-of-a-bitch. Not pick legs, arms, heads,
> or toes. That usually calls for a dead-center torso shot.
>

Simplicity is eloquence. Well distilled. :-)


> RonB

--

There is never a situation where having more rounds is a disadvantage

Rob Leatham

Mark & Juanita wrote:
>
> It would probably be tied to intent. If you got an avaricious
> prosecutor whose view is that it is up to the police to protect the
> public and he/she wanted to make a case of it, if he/she could show
> that you had the bug spray *specifically* to use for self-defense
> (i.e., intent), then he/she might go after you for that. If on the
> other hand, you grabbed the bug spray just because it was the closest
> thing to hand and you were in danger, you were simply using the most
> expedient article available for your self-defense.
>

(nudge-nudge, wink-wink)

"Lew Hodgett" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> SFWIW, passing along as requested
>
> Lew
> -----------------------------------------------
> Wasp Spray
>

Good idea, but unlike the wasps the recipient may still be on its feed and
angry. Best have a plan on what to do next. At home it would be grab the
shotgun.

Matt wrote:
> [email protected] wrote:
>> On Fri, 18 Dec 2009 10:41:31 -0800 (PST), "[email protected]"
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>> On Dec 18, 12:20 pm, [email protected] wrote:
>>>> On Fri, 18 Dec 2009 18:04:53 GMT, notbob <[email protected]>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>> On 2009-12-18, Lew Hodgett <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>> The wasp spray temporarily blinds an attacker until they get to
>>>>>> the hospital for an antidote.
>>>>> No doubt! In fact, probably works faster/better on ppl than on
>>>>> real wasps.
>>>>> nb
>>>> The resulting lawsuit will hurt you a lot more than you hurt the
>>>> attacker.
>>> That's why you need the proper application of a shotgun too. Living
>>> in a state that has accepted the Castle Doctrine helps.
>>
>> The castle doctrine doesn't protect you from lawsuits, or from
>> violation of federal law. Spraying someone with bug spray is a
>> violation of federal law, and is also illegal in many localities.
>>
>
> DAGS on "wasp spray for protection" (without the quotes), and you'll
> find numerous articles which state just that, and information that
> indicates that pepper spray is actually more effective and longer
> lasting. So while wasp spray sounds good, it's really not a good
> idea.

Uh, is it lawful to spray someone with pepper spray?

As for spraying someone with bug spray being a violation of Federal law, I'd
like to see an example of someone being successfully prosecuted under
Federal law for dousing an assailant with bug spray.

In point of fact anything you do may result in a lawsuit, including the use
of pepper spray.

Just remember, "It is better to be tried by 12 than carried by 6".

[email protected] wrote:
> On Fri, 18 Dec 2009 15:31:53 -0700, Matt <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> [email protected] wrote:
>>> On Fri, 18 Dec 2009 10:41:31 -0800 (PST), "[email protected]"
>>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Dec 18, 12:20 pm, [email protected] wrote:
>>>>> On Fri, 18 Dec 2009 18:04:53 GMT, notbob <[email protected]>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>> On 2009-12-18, Lew Hodgett <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>>> The wasp spray temporarily blinds an attacker until they get
>>>>>>> to the hospital for an antidote.
>>>>>> No doubt! In fact, probably works faster/better on ppl than on
>>>>>> real wasps.
>>>>>> nb
>>>>> The resulting lawsuit will hurt you a lot more than you hurt the
>>>>> attacker.
>>>> That's why you need the proper application of a shotgun too.
>>>> Living in a state that has accepted the Castle Doctrine helps.
>>>
>>> The castle doctrine doesn't protect you from lawsuits, or from
>>> violation of federal law. Spraying someone with bug spray is a
>>> violation of federal law, and is also illegal in many localities.
>>>
>>
>> DAGS on "wasp spray for protection" (without the quotes), and you'll
>> find numerous articles which state just that, and information that
>> indicates that pepper spray is actually more effective and longer
>> lasting. So while wasp spray sounds good, it's really not a good
>> idea.
>>
>> Matt
>
> Pepper spray in a small space (typical room) may be just as bad for
> the sprayer as the sprayee. The stuff does create a certain amount of
> mist which can cover a larger area than you may want.
>
> Used outdoors and within a couple of feet of the target individual,
> pepper spray can be very effective.
>
> If I'm close enough to use pepper spray (directly in an intruder's
> face), I may opt for the D-cell MagLight instead - at least swinging
> the MagLight doesn't irritate my eyes...
>
> Maybe a Rottweiler as a guard dog instead of personally applied
> deterrents?

My housekeeping is such that I fully expect that the first notice I'm going
to have of an intruder is the crash as he trips over something and then
"SNICK SNACK" from the 12 gage will take the rest of the fight out of him.

>
> John

[email protected] wrote:
> On Fri, 18 Dec 2009 17:18:41 -0500, [email protected] wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 18 Dec 2009 13:48:33 -0500, [email protected] wrote:
>>
>>> On Fri, 18 Dec 2009 10:41:31 -0800 (PST), "[email protected]"
>>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Dec 18, 12:20 pm, [email protected] wrote:
>>>>> On Fri, 18 Dec 2009 18:04:53 GMT, notbob <[email protected]>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>> On 2009-12-18, Lew Hodgett <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>> The wasp spray temporarily blinds an attacker until they get to
>>>>>>> the hospital for an antidote.
>>>>>
>>>>>> No doubt! In fact, probably works faster/better on ppl than on
>>>>>> real wasps.
>>>>>
>>>>>> nb
>>>>>
>>>>> The resulting lawsuit will hurt you a lot more than you hurt the
>>>>> attacker.
>>>>
>>>> That's why you need the proper application of a shotgun too.
>>>> Living in a state that has accepted the Castle Doctrine helps.
>>>
>>> The castle doctrine doesn't protect you from lawsuits, or from
>>> violation of federal law. Spraying someone with bug spray is a
>>> violation of federal law, and is also illegal in many localities.
>>
>> Then they can relase the perp and tell him to try again. My second
>> line of defense is loaded with 6 rounds and will probably do more
>> harm to the perp than any insect spray...
>>
>> John
>
> Many people don't realize that "Castle Doctrine" isn't always a
> license to do whatever you please with impunity. In fact, it actually
> imposes some restrictions that wouldn't be there without it. It also
> varies from place to place. The Castle Doctrine in two different
> states may be very different. In most states, it does not allow for
> more than "reasonable force" to be used. If you could stop somebody by
> shooting them in the leg, you might find yourself in deep trouble of
> you decide it's more fun to shoot them in the head.

I don't think that you'll find that any statute anywhere in the US requires
you to shoot someone in the leg rather than the head. If you shoot at all
it's lethal force and when you put the police marksmanship instructor on the
stand he'll tell the court after you gave the guy two in the chest and one
in the head that you did exactly what police officers are trained to do.

CW wrote:
> "Matt" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> [email protected] wrote:
>>> On Fri, 18 Dec 2009 10:41:31 -0800 (PST), "[email protected]"
>>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Dec 18, 12:20 pm, [email protected] wrote:
>>>>> On Fri, 18 Dec 2009 18:04:53 GMT, notbob <[email protected]>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>> On 2009-12-18, Lew Hodgett <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>>> The wasp spray temporarily blinds an attacker until they get
>>>>>>> to the hospital for an antidote.
>>>>>> No doubt! In fact, probably works faster/better on ppl than on
>>>>>> real wasps. nb
>>>>> The resulting lawsuit will hurt you a lot more than you hurt the
>>>>> attacker.
>>>> That's why you need the proper application of a shotgun too.
>>>> Living in a state that has accepted the Castle Doctrine helps.
>>>
>>> The castle doctrine doesn't protect you from lawsuits, or from
>>> violation of federal law. Spraying someone with bug spray is a
>>> violation of federal law, and is also illegal in many localities.
>>
>> DAGS on "wasp spray for protection" (without the quotes), and you'll
>> find numerous articles which state just that, and information that
>> indicates that pepper spray is actually more effective and longer
>> lasting. So while wasp spray sounds good, it's really not a good
>> idea.
>
>
> The reasoning behind the wasp spray is that it has a longer range.
> Don't need to get as close. The pepper spry is likely more effective
> ( ever rubbed your eye without thinking while slicing jalapinos. If
> you havnt, don't GHIKT) but has an effective range of about three
> feet. The wasp spray is good for ten.

Uh, _which_ pepper spray? You can get pepper spray with 30 or more foot
range.

HeyBub wrote:
> Lew Hodgett wrote:
>> SFWIW, passing along as requested
>>
>> Lew
>> -----------------------------------------------
>> Wasp Spray
>>
>> A friend who is a receptionist in a church in a high risk area was
>> concerned about someone coming into the office on Monday to rob
>> them when they were counting the collection.
>
> [snip]
>
>>
>> If you're looking for protection, Glinka says look to the spray.
>>
>> "That's going to give you a chance to call the police, maybe get
>> out."
>>
>> Maybe even save a life.
>>
>> Might want to share this with all the people in your life.
>
> Wasp spray? Why not hair spray? Why not have the church receptionist
> pull out her Bible and invite the gremlin to pray with her?
>
> If she's vulnerable, she should keep a GUN in her desk and SHOOT
> anybody who walks in that smells funny.
>
> Wasp spray, whistles, stun guns, and other claptrap merely irritate a
> person who's irrational, doped-up, or a terrorist anyway. Best to
> just blow their furry butts to Kingdom Come and be done with it.
>
> Remember the squint who walked in to a Colorado Springs mega-church
> last year bent on killing as many people as possible. A nice little
> lady greeter pulled out her heater and canceled the scrot's ticket
> before he could do any more harm (he had already killed a couple of
> people at another religious property). She got a medal instead of a
> wreath.
>
> Police? Remember the gun-nut's mantra: "When seconds count, the
> police are just minutes away!"

Uh, Bub, (my Dad's sister's nickname for him was "Bub" by the way--never did
tell me the story that went with it), it's rhetoric like that that scares
the elderly maiden ladies in pants who write our laws. Do be kind enough to
tone it down. Heck, some of them get scared when you tell them what the cop
who taught the class that was required in order to get a CCW told you.

CW wrote:
> "J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> HeyBub wrote:
>>> Lew Hodgett wrote:
>>>> SFWIW, passing along as requested
>>>>
>>>> Lew
>>>> -----------------------------------------------
>>>> Wasp Spray
>>>>
>>>> A friend who is a receptionist in a church in a high risk area
>>>> was concerned about someone coming into the office on Monday to rob
>>>> them when they were counting the collection.
>>>
>>> [snip]
>>>
>>>>
>>>> If you're looking for protection, Glinka says look to the spray.
>>>>
>>>> "That's going to give you a chance to call the police, maybe get
>>>> out."
>>>>
>>>> Maybe even save a life.
>>>>
>>>> Might want to share this with all the people in your life.
>>>
>>> Wasp spray? Why not hair spray? Why not have the church receptionist
>>> pull out her Bible and invite the gremlin to pray with her?
>>>
>>> If she's vulnerable, she should keep a GUN in her desk and SHOOT
>>> anybody who walks in that smells funny.
>>>
>>> Wasp spray, whistles, stun guns, and other claptrap merely irritate
>>> a person who's irrational, doped-up, or a terrorist anyway. Best to
>>> just blow their furry butts to Kingdom Come and be done with it.
>>>
>>> Remember the squint who walked in to a Colorado Springs mega-church
>>> last year bent on killing as many people as possible. A nice little
>>> lady greeter pulled out her heater and canceled the scrot's ticket
>>> before he could do any more harm (he had already killed a couple of
>>> people at another religious property). She got a medal instead of a
>>> wreath.
>>>
>>> Police? Remember the gun-nut's mantra: "When seconds count, the
>>> police are just minutes away!"
>>
>> Uh, Bub, (my Dad's sister's nickname for him was "Bub" by the
>> way--never did
>> tell me the story that went with it), it's rhetoric like that that
>> scares the elderly maiden ladies in pants who write our laws. Do be
>> kind enough to
>> tone it down. Heck, some of them get scared when you tell them what
>> the cop
>> who taught the class that was required in order to get a CCW told
>> you.
>>
>
> What class?

The one that the law says that you have to take. Do understand that
everyone does not live in the same state you do.