Explain to me

With an AK-47 when you were merely being attacked with fists? You can't do that. If you do, you will go to jail/prison.

If you and your pals jump a man and you get cut, that's on you.
A gun or a knife is a perfectly valid means of defending yourself against multiple attackers or against a larger attacker.
Anyone who chooses to attack another person has no valid complaint regarding any injuries they sustain when the person they attack defends themselves using any means available.

Not necessarily.

You can sue someone for saving your life. Sorry I broke your ribs saving your life during that heart attach but I am really sorry that I will have to pay you damages.

If you shoot an assaliant in your own home you can be charged with manslaughter or murder.

Assault and Battery is anything where you lay your hands on another person. If both parties are combatants then both parties can be charged. There in lays the problem. If you fight back and win you may be the one in trouble.

 
Last edited:
You have to look at this from the business side. I would hire someone who doesn't have a criminal record rather than someone who does. Try to put yourself in employer's place. They do not want to lose money so they don't take the risk of hiring people with criminal records. Just try to talk and explain the manager or the employer your situation instead of filling out applications and forgetting about them.
 
You can sue someone for saving your life. Sorry I broke your ribs saving your life during that heart attach but I am really sorry that I will have to pay you damages.

Attempts to file such a lawsuit should be punishable by execution via hanging
If you shoot an assaliant in your own home you can be charged with manslaughter or murder.

not if you live in a Castle doctrine state
 
If you and your pals jump a man and you get cut, that's on you.

Not unless you and your pals are using deadly force.

A gun or a knife is a perfectly valid means of defending yourself against multiple attackers or against a larger attacker.

Again - a person cannot use deadly force (a gun or a knife) to defend himself against non deadly force. I suppose if a person was being attacked by a large mob and he legitimately felt that his life was in danger, he would be justified in using deadly force to defend himself. But on the hypothetical as you present it here, the person being attacked would not be justified in using deadly force.

Anyone who chooses to attack another person has no valid complaint regarding any injuries they sustain when the person they attack defends themselves using any means available.

This is just flat wrong. Under your hypothesis here, if a guy takes a swing at another guy in a bar, the person being attacked can duck the blow, pull out a gun and blow the attacker's head off. Once again: no deadly force allowed unless it is to defend against deadly force.

Why don't you just come out and TELL US what happend in this case? You keep hedging. Why? You want advice - no one can give it to you unless all of the facts are known. Could it be that you know that if you did give out all the facts, it would be patently obvious that you (or whomever we are talking about here) acted improperly in this incident and that you (or whomever) were clearly guilty of the crime for which you (or whomever) were convicted?
 
Last edited:
You can sue someone for saving your life. Sorry I broke your ribs saving your life during that heart attach but I am really sorry that I will have to pay you damages.

Attempts to file such a lawsuit should be punishable by execution via hanging

Never the less, hanging or no hangings, it happens all the time. So the next time you come across someing dying, choking , drowning, pulled from a burning car ect. ask them if they want your help first and get it in wiring before you raise a hand to help. Be sure to add all clauses that will protect you from any harmfull injury suits. Sad to say im not even joking.

Its like when you have an operation, you sigh a form saying that if you die on the table you cant sue the hospital.



If you shoot an assailant in your own home you can be charged with manslaughter or murder.
not if you live in a Castle doctrine state

Then pray you live in one of those 7 states. That doesn't not change the fact in the rest of the country that you cannot kill and assailant in your home even if you have cause.

on a side note however, I will shoot to kill and worry about the legal problems later :).
 
Last edited:
Why don't you just come out and TELL US what happend in this case? You keep hedging. Why? You want advice - no one can give it to you unless all of the facts are known. Could it be that you know that if you did give out all the facts, it would be patently obvious that you (or whomever we are talking about here) acted improperly in this incident and that you (or whomever) were clearly guilty of the crime for which you (or whomever) were convicted?

What I am getting from JB (and that's not much information) is that he got jumped, pummeled the hell out of the person or people that did the jumping, or pulled a knife perhaps? the cops got called and the jumppers all stuck together and alibied each other out. How am i doing JB?
 
Last edited:
You can sue someone for saving your life. Sorry I broke your ribs saving your life during that heart attach but I am really sorry that I will have to pay you damages.

Attempts to file such a lawsuit should be punishable by execution via hanging

Never the less, hanging or no hangings, it happens all the time. So the next time you come across someing dying, choking , drowning, pulled from a burning car ect. ask them if they want your help first and get it in wiring before you raise a hand to help. Be sure to add all clauses that will protect you from any harmfull injury suits. Sad to say im not even joking.

Its like when you have an operation, you sigh a form saying that if you die on the table you cant sue the hospital.



If you shoot an assailant in your own home you can be charged with manslaughter or murder.
not if you live in a Castle doctrine state

Then pray you live in one of those 7 states. That doesn't not change the fact in the rest of the country that you cannot kill and assailant in your home even if you have cause.

on a side note however, I will shoot to kill and worry about the legal problems later :).

Many states have so-called Good Samaritan laws, which exempt a rescuer from any civil suits arising out of attempts to help another.

Many don't.
 
Simple really: you and your buddies decide to jump someone and you get hurt- that's on you.

When the victim is charged for defending himself and then is screwed for seven years, there's something very wrong with the system

I'm sorry to hear that too JB. Keep trying and don't look back. ;)
 
Many states have so-called Good Samaritan laws, which exempt a rescuer from any civil suits arising out of attempts to help another.
Many don't.

Even in states with good samaritian laws, it doesn't hold up in court. You cant get in trouble in criminal, but you can get fleeced in civil.
 
You can sue someone for saving your life. Sorry I broke your ribs saving your life during that heart attach but I am really sorry that I will have to pay you damages.

Attempts to file such a lawsuit should be punishable by execution via hanging
If you shoot an assaliant in your own home you can be charged with manslaughter or murder.

not if you live in a Castle doctrine state

JB If I may ask, Where are you based out of?
 
Many states have so-called Good Samaritan laws, which exempt a rescuer from any civil suits arising out of attempts to help another.
Many don't.

Even in states with good samaritian laws, it doesn't hold up in court. You cant get in trouble in criminal, but you can get fleeced in civil.

Do you have some basis for this statement?
 
Many states have so-called Good Samaritan laws, which exempt a rescuer from any civil suits arising out of attempts to help another.
Many don't.

Even in states with good samaritian laws, it doesn't hold up in court. You cant get in trouble in criminal, but you can get fleeced in civil.

Do you have some basis for this statement?


lol your funny! Citing cases is it?

California Auto Accident and Personal Injury Liability of Good Samaritans After The Recent California Supreme Court Decision

 
Last edited:
Even in states with good samaritian laws, it doesn't hold up in court. You cant get in trouble in criminal, but you can get fleeced in civil.

Do you have some basis for this statement?


lol your funny! Citing cases is it?

California Auto Accident and Personal Injury Liability of Good Samaritans After The Recent California Supreme Court Decision


Well, holy cow! Very good! You DO have a basis for your statement - and I have learned a little law myself here. Thank you very much.

For those too lazy to click on and read the link, it goes like this: California has a good samaritan law - but it only protects good samaritans from suit if they are rendering "emergency care" at the scene of an accident. Our beloved Supreme Court, in a case calling upon them to interpret this law, held that this means emergency MEDICAL care so, if a good samaritan is merely trying to help (pulling an unconscious victim out of a flaming car), they are not, technically, rendering emergency MEDICAL care and can, therefore, be subject to suit if they cause further injury to the victim by moving them or whatever.

Interesting decision. It sounds technically correct to me - but it's still pretty chicken, in my opinion. If I was unconscious and about to be burned to death, I would most certainly welcome a good samaritan pulling me out of the situation, whatever other injuries might be caused by what he/she had done. Looks like that is less likely to happen now, at least in California (my state, by the way).

Good work, Syrenn!
 
Last edited:

Well, holy cow! Very good! You DO have a basis for your statement - and I have learned a little law myself here. Thank you very much.

For those too lazy to click on and read the link, it goes like this: California has a good samaritan law - but it only protects good samaritans from suit if they are rendering "emergency care" at the scene of an accident. Our beloved Supreme Court, in a case calling upon them to interpret this law, held that this means emergency MEDICAL care so, if a good samaritan is merely trying to help (pulling an unconscious victim out of a flaming car), they are not, technically, rendering emergency MEDICAL care and can, therefore, be subject to suit if they cause further injury to the victim by moving them or whatever.

Interesting decision. It sounds technically correct to me - but it's still pretty chicken, in my opinion. If I was unconscious and about to be burned to death, I would most certainly welcome a good samaritan pulling me out of the situation, whatever other injuries might be caused by what he/she had done. Looks like that is less likely to happen now, at least in California (my state, by the way).

Good work, Syrenn!

Heh...I always do. LOL don" t mess with the lawyers ;) Your welcome and that will learn ya....:lol:

WHAT?!?!?! no rep for edifying the masses??? :lol::lol::lol::lol::lol:

 
Last edited:
If you and your pals jump a man and you get cut, that's on you.

Not unless you and your pals are using deadly force.

A gun or a knife is a perfectly valid means of defending yourself against multiple attackers or against a larger attacker.

Again - a person cannot use deadly force (a gun or a knife) to defend himself against non deadly force. I suppose if a person was being attacked by a large mob and he legitimately felt that his life was in danger, he would be justified in using deadly force to defend himself. But on the hypothetical as you present it here, the person being attacked would not be justified in using deadly force.

Anyone who chooses to attack another person has no valid complaint regarding any injuries they sustain when the person they attack defends themselves using any means available.

This is just flat wrong. Under your hypothesis here, if a guy takes a swing at another guy in a bar, the person being attacked can duck the blow, pull out a gun and blow the attacker's head off. Once again: no deadly force allowed unless it is to defend against deadly force.

Why don't you just come out and TELL US what happend in this case? You keep hedging. Why? You want advice - no one can give it to you unless all of the facts are known. Could it be that you know that if you did give out all the facts, it would be patently obvious that you (or whomever we are talking about here) acted improperly in this incident and that you (or whomever) were clearly guilty of the crime for which you (or whomever) were convicted?

I spent almost three years of a five year sentence in a Texas prison for aggravated assault w/intent. But I wasn't attacked, as amatter of fact I was the one doing the attacking. My weapon of choice at the time was a 3/4" SS bar stock 3' long.
 
Under your hypothesis here, if a guy takes a swing at another guy in a bar the person being attacked can duck the blow, pull out a gun and blow the attacker's head off.
guns are not allowed in bars here :eusa_eh:
Once again: no deadly force allowed unless it is to defend against deadly force.

A punch is deadly force if you strike your head against a stone or have an undiagnosed anneurism. Punches and kicks are deadly force. Have you never herd of someone being beaten to death? One cannot know the intentions of a mob and whether they intend to and are in control of themselves so they are able to stop before lethal injury occurs. A broken rib and a punctured/collapsed lung, brain hemorrhaging...even so much as a few knocked out teeth can be lethal if the man is unconscious and he chokes to death on his own blood.


When one his attacked, his or her only logical course of action is to defend himself or herself in any way possible. The only moral position is to support someone in defending themselves.


Could it be that you know that if you did give out all the facts, it would be patently obvious that you (or whomever we are talking about here) acted improperly in this incident and that you (or whomever) were clearly guilty of the crime for which you (or whomever) were convicted?

I told you what happened
 
Why don't you just come out and TELL US what happend in this case? You keep hedging. Why? You want advice - no one can give it to you unless all of the facts are known. Could it be that you know that if you did give out all the facts, it would be patently obvious that you (or whomever we are talking about here) acted improperly in this incident and that you (or whomever) were clearly guilty of the crime for which you (or whomever) were convicted?

What I am getting from JB (and that's not much information) is that he got jumped, pummeled the hell out of the person or people that did the jumping, or pulled a knife perhaps? the cops got called and the jumppers all stuck together and alibied each other out. How am i doing JB?


'bout sums it up
 
You can sue someone for saving your life. Sorry I broke your ribs saving your life during that heart attach but I am really sorry that I will have to pay you damages.

Attempts to file such a lawsuit should be punishable by execution via hanging
If you shoot an assaliant in your own home you can be charged with manslaughter or murder.
not if you live in a Castle doctrine state

JB If I may ask, Where are you based out of?

Arizona- or Tenochtitlan, apparently, ones one goes south of Five Points :rolleyes:

Truth be told, I sometimes wonder what country I'm in.
 
If you and your pals jump a man and you get cut, that's on you.

Not unless you and your pals are using deadly force.



Again - a person cannot use deadly force (a gun or a knife) to defend himself against non deadly force. I suppose if a person was being attacked by a large mob and he legitimately felt that his life was in danger, he would be justified in using deadly force to defend himself. But on the hypothetical as you present it here, the person being attacked would not be justified in using deadly force.

Anyone who chooses to attack another person has no valid complaint regarding any injuries they sustain when the person they attack defends themselves using any means available.

This is just flat wrong. Under your hypothesis here, if a guy takes a swing at another guy in a bar, the person being attacked can duck the blow, pull out a gun and blow the attacker's head off. Once again: no deadly force allowed unless it is to defend against deadly force.

Why don't you just come out and TELL US what happend in this case? You keep hedging. Why? You want advice - no one can give it to you unless all of the facts are known. Could it be that you know that if you did give out all the facts, it would be patently obvious that you (or whomever we are talking about here) acted improperly in this incident and that you (or whomever) were clearly guilty of the crime for which you (or whomever) were convicted?

I spent almost three years of a five year sentence in a Texas prison for aggravated assault w/intent. But I wasn't attacked, as amatter of fact I was the one doing the attacking. My weapon of choice at the time was a 3/4" SS bar stock 3' long.


My presumptive sentence was twice your five years... max was twice that again

I was not taking a contracted attorney [not a DA, but an attorney who seriously had to beg the courts to assign him a client because noone would hire him] to court.

The motherfucker only informed me after sentencing of the inability of the State to located to alleged 'victim' after the night in question for further questioning.
 

Forum List

Back
Top