From: Hagbard Celine (hagbard@ix.netcom.com)
Date: Mon Jul 07 1997 - 08:25:08 MDT
Michael Lorrey wrote:
> If one applies the term self defense to mean protection of one's self,
> property, and dependents from violators of ones rights, whether they be
> individuals, gangs, mobs, or any level of government, then you are
> exactly right.
Unfortunately, according to current jurisprudence, self-defense carries
with it an objective standard of reasonableness. The standard being,
what would a normal, reasonable, and prudent person do under the same or
similar circumstances. In this situation, a jury would look at the
circumstances, decide what the threat of violence really was, decide
what self-defense was necessary, what self-defense was unnecessary but
justified, and then decide if the self-defense exceeded these
guidelines. It's all annoyingly arbitrary.
<snip>
> Since Article Ten
> defines the "militia" as any male between the ages of 18 and 40 (or is
> it 45?),
There is no Article 10. Goes only to Seven.
> and also states that local sheriffs are empowered to
> temporarily draft from the militia pool for local law enforcement needs
> (where the "posse" concept came from), it is apparent that the
> constitution intended every member of the "militia" to have authority
> and responsibility for law enforcement within the confines of their own
> property and family.
This is nowhere to be found in the copy I have, unless I missed it
entirely.
> I find another funny parallel, in rural Washington State, every county
> but I beleive King, Thurston, Pierce, and Snohomish have passed in the
> past three years county ordinances requiring every homeowner to posess a
> gun and ammunition.
This seems as grave a violation of one's freedoms as to disallow gun
ownership completely.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 01 2002 - 14:44:33 MST