@Always Eleven to him,
Always Eleven to him wrote:
Quote:as long as he thinks he can go around having the right to shoot at anything he thinks is a danger for him.
I agree, saab.
Quote:Use of force is justified when a person reasonably believes that it is necessary for the defense of oneself or another against the immediate use of unlawful force. However, a person must use no more force than appears reasonably necessary in the circumstances.
Force likely to cause death or great bodily harm is justified in self-defense only if a person reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent death or great bodily harm.
Legal Definition of Self-Defense Defense,
http://www.lectlaw.com/def/d030.htm (last visited Nov. 1, 2009) (emphasis added).
Okay, self defense applies only to shooting other people, not animals.
What concerns me about some of the posts here is that the posters' attitutes might carry over into the shooting-human-beings realm. And that's when the jury will decide if the person claiming self defense
reasonably believed deadly force was
necessary.
But at that point (the trial) it's too late; a human life has already been taken, or the human has been injured.
U said that u
"agree" 11,
but the fellow with whom u agree
falsely implied that I had indicated desires or intentions or
"the right" to kill peaceful animals; that 's
a lie.
I
only indicated that Taylor shoud have counterattacked
the coyotes, either from when thay charged her,
or
from when thay were biting her (fatally) all over her body.
The quoted allegation against me that:
". . . he thinks he can go around having the right to shoot at anything
he thinks is a danger for him"
is a lie, created or hallucinated by Saab.
Nowhere in the thread, has
ANYONE, certainly not
ME,
asserted that if someone "thinks" that an animal is dangerous
then he shoud kill him.
I never suggested a pre-emptive attack.
A counterattack shoud begin after the primary attack has begun.
David