Defending your self in not INTENTIONALLY inflicting harm.  It is a
reaction to an immediate situation.  If you are threatened with bodily
harm and respond with lethal force to kill your attacker, you will be
charged with manslaughter.  You may be acquitted, but most likely you
will be found guilty.  The sentence may be pretty light (1 year
unsupervised probation) because you were defending yourself, but you
still broke the law.

Now, if get a shot off and miss, and then chase the scumbag out into the
yard or into the street and kill him, you will tried for something much
more severe, possibly even murder, because the immediate threat no
longer exists.

Interestingly enough, you would be better off killing the intruder
INSIDE, rather than just wounding, because there is less evidence to
refute your story and some shyster will not be able to fabricate a story
for the intruder to tell in court to separate you from your life savings.

In another post their was a hypothetical transcript of a police
questioning someone after killing an intruder.  Here is what you SHOULD say:

Police:    What happened here?
Victim:    He attacked me.  I tried to stop him.
Police:    How did you try to stop him?
Victim:    I told him to get out.  He said he was going to kill me.
(This establishes the clear threat to your life)
Police:    What did you do then?
Victim:     I tried to stop him.  I only wanted to shoot him in the
leg.  I missed.  (Makes it hard for anyone to prove malice or fore thought)
Police:    What happened next?
Victim:    He attacked me again.  Said he was going to kill us all.  I
had to shoot him again.  (Evidence that you had no choice)
Police:    What did you do then?
Victim:    I called 911 and tried to help him.

Police:    OK sir, sounds like it was unavoidable, you will need to talk
to the DA, but you should be OK.

*    *    *    *    *

We do need a vigilante group operating in town - not to kill  (although
I personally like that idea) - but to be VIGILANT and get evidence and
report the bad guys to the cops.   Kind of like bat man, but without all
the high tech toys.

Although a camcorder DOES work wonders!!!

Cox, Michael wrote:

>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: zscoundrel [mailto:zscoundrel@kc.rr.com]
>> Sent: Thursday, August 23, 2001 9:47 PM
>> To: Jonathan Hutchins
>> Cc: 'Ahmik'; kclug@kclug.org
>> Subject: Re:
>>
>>
>> Nobody EVER has the right to intentionally inflict harm.
>> Peace officers
>> and certain government agencies have permission to use
>> coercive means to
>> enforce the laws, but no person or entity has the right to
>> intentionally
>> inflict harm to another.  If you are being harmed, you need to
>> investigate and report the infractions to the proper authority.
>
>
> "EVER?"  So...you're saying that no one has the right to protect themselves
> or their family?  Is that what you're saying?  Because that sure *sounds*
> like what you're trying to say...
>
>
> --
>
>   .-.          Michael Cox
>   /v       Linux user 199542
>  //     http://counter.li.org
> /(   )  riffraff@linuxgeekz.org
>  ^^-^^   - Support Open Source -
>
> Americans have the right and advantage of being armed - unlike the citizens
> of other countries whose governments are afraid to trust the people with
> arms. -- James Madison, The Federalist Papers
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

--
At 20, I was liberal, because I had nothing to lose and so much to gain.
by 40, I was conservative, because I had so much to lose and so little to gain.
Isn't it amazing what 20 years of hard work and experience will do for ones' point of view?