bkev said:
Personally, I wouldn't have let a six-year-old have an e-mail, which apparently you did. But I'm glad that you're giving them freedom; not letting your kids answer the phone is a crime.
Personally, I wouldn't have let a six-year-old have an e-mail, which apparently you did. But I'm glad that you're giving them freedom; not letting your kids answer the phone is a crime.
Why is that? When I was a kid, we didn't have caller ID. There was no way to know who was calling until you answered the phone and asked. That's why my parents had a rule that we weren't to answer the phone if they were home. If they weren't home and someone asked for them, we were always suppose to say that they were working in the yard or they were in the shower. That way if some crazy person were calling, they'd think our parents were home.
With caller ID this is much less of a problem, but the problem still exists. You can now tell what number the person is calling from unless their number is blocked. Personally, if my kid needs to take a call, that person can talk to me first anyway.
Arnie.d said:
Yes, but the law is the same for people who don't think rationally.
Lets say your girlfriend cheats on you with your best friend. You can invite them over and shoot them dead when they walk onto your property.
Johnboy3434 said:
The law says they have the right to shoot them, no that they have to shoot them. Any rational person wouldn't shoot a tresspasser on sight unless they saw a weapon (or recognized the person as a dangerous individual). Hunters may still need to watch where they step, but surveying the terrain is part of any good hunter's preparation. As for tricking them onto the property, that's harder to get away with than you might think (without leaving potential evidence or witnesses behind, anyway).
Arnie.d said:
Well, that's the kind of law that's easily abused. So if you want to legally kill someone you only have to trick them to set foot on your property and you shoot them. Or what if you are hiking somewhere and you step onto someone's property without even knowing it, you risk getting shot.
Well, that's the kind of law that's easily abused. So if you want to legally kill someone you only have to trick them to set foot on your property and you shoot them. Or what if you are hiking somewhere and you step onto someone's property without even knowing it, you risk getting shot.
The law says they have the right to shoot them, no that they have to shoot them. Any rational person wouldn't shoot a tresspasser on sight unless they saw a weapon (or recognized the person as a dangerous individual). Hunters may still need to watch where they step, but surveying the terrain is part of any good hunter's preparation. As for tricking them onto the property, that's harder to get away with than you might think (without leaving potential evidence or witnesses behind, anyway).
Yes, but the law is the same for people who don't think rationally.
Lets say your girlfriend cheats on you with your best friend. You can invite them over and shoot them dead when they walk onto your property.
If your girlfriend and "best friend" (a real best friend would never do that) come over after doing that, they deserve to be shot just so their stupidity does not get passed on to their offspring (assuming either of them ever have any kids).
Arnie.d said:
But anyway, I looked up the law and it seems more nuanced then just being able to shoot anyone:
"Senate Bill 378 extends a person’s right to stand their ground beyond the home to vehicles and workplaces, allowing the reasonable use of deadly force when an intruder is:
- Committing certain violent crimes, such as murder or sexual assault, or is attempting to commit such crimes;
- Unlawfully trying to enter a protected place; or
- Unlawfully trying to remove a person from a protected place.
The law also provides civil immunity for a person who lawfully uses deadly force in the above circumstances. The use of deadly force is not lawful when it is used to provoke or if a crime other than a Class C misdemeanor is committed by the victim.
I think it's an excellent law. I wish we had something like that in the Netherlands.
But anyway, I looked up the law and it seems more nuanced then just being able to shoot anyone:
"Senate Bill 378 extends a person’s right to stand their ground beyond the home to vehicles and workplaces, allowing the reasonable use of deadly force when an intruder is:
- Committing certain violent crimes, such as murder or sexual assault, or is attempting to commit such crimes;
- Unlawfully trying to enter a protected place; or
- Unlawfully trying to remove a person from a protected place.
The law also provides civil immunity for a person who lawfully uses deadly force in the above circumstances. The use of deadly force is not lawful when it is used to provoke or if a crime other than a Class C misdemeanor is committed by the victim.
I think it's an excellent law. I wish we had something like that in the Netherlands.
Yes, the law is a bit more nuanced than Psycho led us to believe. It's not just a shoot whoever you want when they're on your property kind of law. Of course the above situations are helped by having witnesses. If there are no witnesses, the police will probably have to have an investigation to make sure you were complying with the law.