Posting from me has been light due to PSSO+1 incorporating under Kansas law* getting married, and SWWBO and I had +1 for the weekend while PSSO had a very short honeymoon free from the attention-sucking food processor bundle of joy that is Miles. Miles (+1) likes the beard. Hmmm. I have to come up with new acronyms now that Prodigal Son and his Significant Other have merged.
Last Saturday found 1SG Keith celebrating a natal anniversary, and despite being warned by the Adjutant, I spaced it. Happy One More Year Not At Room Temp, Top! At this point, Natal Days are things to be ignored, not that AARP will let you.
Now, here's an interesting fillip to Kansas law regarding the Castle Doctrine (which we here are clearly interested in). The statute reads:
Guess what I *can't* do?
I can shoot you, but I can't *threaten* to shoot you... unless I follow through and... shoot you. If you back down after I threaten you (i.e. the theory of deterrence *works*), the state can come after me for threatening you.
Got that?
If I threaten to shoot you, and it works - then I can't mount a "self-defense" defense. I leave you bleeding out in the gutter, I'm cool. The Kansas Supreme Court says so. Call it the "Politeness Clause" to the Castle Doctrine.
Sounds stupid (and in a sense, it is) but it turns out - words matter. To make fuller sense of this, you need to read the opinion (including the dissent).
The utility of this exercise isn't mocking the pusillanimous nature of the majority opinion (especially if you are a believer in strict constructionism) but rather as a warning about the huge freaking omnibus bills the Federal legislature is becoming so fond of - words matter. One would hope that the drafters read them all... It's those subordinate and conditional clauses that are going to trip you up.
This is a relatively simple thing in comparison to, say, the health care bill.
H/t, SWWBO and the Volokh Conspiracy.
*And you thought I was kidding. H/t, JimC
Last Saturday found 1SG Keith celebrating a natal anniversary, and despite being warned by the Adjutant, I spaced it. Happy One More Year Not At Room Temp, Top! At this point, Natal Days are things to be ignored, not that AARP will let you.
Now, here's an interesting fillip to Kansas law regarding the Castle Doctrine (which we here are clearly interested in). The statute reads:
Got that? I can shoot you, beat you down, kick your testicles so that they pop out of your ears if I believe you are about to hurt me or mine, and I've no obligation to waddle away as best I can should an exit be available.(a) A person is justified in the use of force against another when and to the extent it appears to such person and such person reasonably believes that such force is necessary to defend such person or a third person against such other’s imminent use of unlawful force.
(b) A person is justified in the use of deadly force under circumstances described in subsection (a) if such person reasonably believes deadly force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to such person or a third person.
(c) Nothing in this section shall require a person to retreat if such person is using force to protect such person or a third person.
Guess what I *can't* do?
I can shoot you, but I can't *threaten* to shoot you... unless I follow through and... shoot you. If you back down after I threaten you (i.e. the theory of deterrence *works*), the state can come after me for threatening you.
Got that?
If I threaten to shoot you, and it works - then I can't mount a "self-defense" defense. I leave you bleeding out in the gutter, I'm cool. The Kansas Supreme Court says so. Call it the "Politeness Clause" to the Castle Doctrine.
Sounds stupid (and in a sense, it is) but it turns out - words matter. To make fuller sense of this, you need to read the opinion (including the dissent).
The utility of this exercise isn't mocking the pusillanimous nature of the majority opinion (especially if you are a believer in strict constructionism) but rather as a warning about the huge freaking omnibus bills the Federal legislature is becoming so fond of - words matter. One would hope that the drafters read them all... It's those subordinate and conditional clauses that are going to trip you up.
This is a relatively simple thing in comparison to, say, the health care bill.
H/t, SWWBO and the Volokh Conspiracy.
*And you thought I was kidding. H/t, JimC
Ah, yaaaas. The old, "Halt, or *BLAM!* I'll shoot" trick...
Since the majority of our elected officials are lawyers, and as lawyers, they know that words matter, I believe such "not reading" is done on purpose...
In my experience, laywers become politicians because they are 1) too stupid, or 2) too lazy, to make a living practicing law, That having been said, I agree with the philosopher who opined: "Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity."
"The Legislature is again in session, and no man's life, property, or wife is safe," - unknown 19th Century Texas humorist
"Why did you shoot him 12 times?"
"The clip only holds 12 rounds."
I like that.
[wanders off grumbling into beard]
In my CCW class, the POINT of being an armed citizen is to get the goblin to cease and desist, NOT to ventilate him/her (except as a last resort).
One can't hold the goblin at gunpoint - that's kidnapping. (which I also don't get). Now I can't threaten someone who is threatening ME????
threads wants to immigrate - but to WHERE????