Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
New media
New media comments
Latest activity
Classifieds
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Log in
Register
What's New?
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Navigation
Install the app
Install
More Options
Advertise with us
Contact Us
Close Menu
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Forums
The Water Cooler
General Discussion
warning or bullet?
Search titles only
By:
Reply to Thread
This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
Message
<blockquote data-quote="LightningCrash" data-source="post: 1506764" data-attributes="member: 4278"><p>But yet the sentence isn't constructed that way. If we were to accept your viewpoint as true, then the preceding predicate "A person who is not engaged in an unlawful activity" is also not a requirement for the protections of Section D, which isn't the case (they have upheld that predicate multiple times, see Dawkins vs State, 2011). It doesn't have to hold your hand and Wikipedia bullet-point with historical examples... the way it's written says everything there is.</p><p>And I never said a CC must stand by for anything. Now <strong>you</strong> are the one over-reading what is written. I just said it's not protected by Section D of the SYG Act... not that it wouldn't be justifiable homicide to shoot the robber.</p><p></p><p>The Oklahoma Jury instructions again iterate <strong>both items</strong> as a predicate for Section D:</p><p><a href="http://www.oscn.net/applications/OCISWeb/DeliverDocument.asp?CiteID=454361" target="_blank">http://www.oscn.net/applications/OCISWeb/DeliverDocument.asp?CiteID=454361</a></p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="LightningCrash, post: 1506764, member: 4278"] But yet the sentence isn't constructed that way. If we were to accept your viewpoint as true, then the preceding predicate "A person who is not engaged in an unlawful activity" is also not a requirement for the protections of Section D, which isn't the case (they have upheld that predicate multiple times, see Dawkins vs State, 2011). It doesn't have to hold your hand and Wikipedia bullet-point with historical examples... the way it's written says everything there is. And I never said a CC must stand by for anything. Now [b]you[/b] are the one over-reading what is written. I just said it's not protected by Section D of the SYG Act... not that it wouldn't be justifiable homicide to shoot the robber. The Oklahoma Jury instructions again iterate [b]both items[/b] as a predicate for Section D: [url]http://www.oscn.net/applications/OCISWeb/DeliverDocument.asp?CiteID=454361[/url] [/QUOTE]
Insert Quotes…
Verification
Post Reply
Forums
The Water Cooler
General Discussion
warning or bullet?
Search titles only
By:
Top
Bottom