Vanilla Forums has been nominated for a second time in the CMS Critic "Critic's Choice" awards, and we need your vote! Read more here, and then do the thing (please).
Our new Indie Games subforum is now open for business in G&T. Go and check it out, you might land a code for a free game. If you're developing an indie game and want to post about it, follow these directions. If you don't, he'll break your legs! Hahaha! Seriously though.
Our rules have been updated and given their own forum. Go and look at them! They are nice, and there may be new ones that you didn't know about! Hooray for rules! Hooray for The System! Hooray for Conforming!

Heller Affirmed - SCOTUS Upholds 2nd Amendment Individual Right Determination

11718192022

Posts

  • mcdermottmcdermott Registered User regular
    edited July 2008
    Drez wrote: »
    That sounds like a very irresponsible law. What if you encounter a plain clothes cop shooting a criminal. Then you could legally shoot the cop?

    Theoretically? Yes. Practically? Watch your cornhole, and don't drop the soap.

    EDIT: And it's not as irresponsible as it might seem. It's not exactly better to tie somebody's hands if they witness somebody being assaulted, and that's probably the more likely scenario. Keeping in mind that I'm talking about the defense of another person, not another person's property.

  • DrezDrez Registered User regular
    edited July 2008
    mcdermott wrote: »
    Drez wrote: »
    That sounds like a very irresponsible law. What if you encounter a plain clothes cop shooting a criminal. Then you could legally shoot the cop?

    Theoretically? Yes. Practically? Watch your cornhole, and don't drop the soap.

    Granted, but I don't think it is responsible to legislate based on prediction of lacadaisical enforcement given certain particulars. I know this isn't exactly practical, but you shouldn't really write in any laws that you wouldn't be A-OK with being enforced 100% of the time.

    Plus it's irresponsible anyway. There are so many things wrong with this. I understand the concept behind it, but it just seems dangerous and even Frontier-sy to me.

    steam_sig.png
  • mcdermottmcdermott Registered User regular
    edited July 2008
    Drez wrote: »
    mcdermott wrote: »
    Drez wrote: »
    That sounds like a very irresponsible law. What if you encounter a plain clothes cop shooting a criminal. Then you could legally shoot the cop?

    Theoretically? Yes. Practically? Watch your cornhole, and don't drop the soap.

    Granted, but I don't think it is responsible to legislate based on prediction of lacadaisical enforcement given certain particulars. I know this isn't exactly practical, but you shouldn't really write in any laws that you wouldn't be A-OK with being enforced 100% of the time.

    Plus it's irresponsible anyway. There are so many things wrong with this. I understand the concept behind it, but it just seems dangerous and even Frontier-sy to me.

    If by "frontier-sy" you mean the idea that's it's alright to use deadly force to protect the life of a fellow human being, call me Davy Crockett. The issue with your plainclothes-cop example isn't so much with the laws regarding defense of life, so much as the special treatment law enforcement officers receive in our justice system in general.

    So while I agree that the law should be consistent, I don't agree that it's particularly flawed. Though, again for clarity, I think the laws regarding defense of property of a third party are (at least in Texas).

  • ScalfinScalfin __BANNED USERS regular
    edited July 2008
    mcdermott wrote: »
    Drez wrote: »
    mcdermott wrote: »
    Drez wrote: »
    That sounds like a very irresponsible law. What if you encounter a plain clothes cop shooting a criminal. Then you could legally shoot the cop?

    Theoretically? Yes. Practically? Watch your cornhole, and don't drop the soap.

    Granted, but I don't think it is responsible to legislate based on prediction of lacadaisical enforcement given certain particulars. I know this isn't exactly practical, but you shouldn't really write in any laws that you wouldn't be A-OK with being enforced 100% of the time.

    Plus it's irresponsible anyway. There are so many things wrong with this. I understand the concept behind it, but it just seems dangerous and even Frontier-sy to me.

    If by "frontier-sy" you mean the idea that's it's alright to use deadly force to protect the life of a fellow human being, call me Davy Crockett. The issue with your plainclothes-cop example isn't so much with the laws regarding defense of life, so much as the special treatment law enforcement officers receive in our justice system in general.

    So while I agree that the law should be consistent, I don't agree that it's particularly flawed. Though, again for clarity, I think the laws regarding defense of property of a third party are (at least in Texas).

    That's what most self-defense laws do. The Texas law, on the other hand, lets you shoot a guy and say "he started it," and then get away with it.

    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
    The rest of you, I fucking hate you for the fact that I now have a blue dot on this god awful thread.
  • DrezDrez Registered User regular
    edited July 2008
    mcdermott wrote: »
    Drez wrote: »
    mcdermott wrote: »
    Drez wrote: »
    That sounds like a very irresponsible law. What if you encounter a plain clothes cop shooting a criminal. Then you could legally shoot the cop?

    Theoretically? Yes. Practically? Watch your cornhole, and don't drop the soap.

    Granted, but I don't think it is responsible to legislate based on prediction of lacadaisical enforcement given certain particulars. I know this isn't exactly practical, but you shouldn't really write in any laws that you wouldn't be A-OK with being enforced 100% of the time.

    Plus it's irresponsible anyway. There are so many things wrong with this. I understand the concept behind it, but it just seems dangerous and even Frontier-sy to me.

    If by "frontier-sy" you mean the idea that's it's alright to use deadly force to protect the life of a fellow human being, call me Davy Crockett. The issue with your plainclothes-cop example isn't so much with the laws regarding defense of life, so much as the special treatment law enforcement officers receive in our justice system in general.

    So while I agree that the law should be consistent, I don't agree that it's particularly flawed. Though, again for clarity, I think the laws regarding defense of property of a third party are (at least in Texas).

    What it basically does is legalize vigilantism. I could go to Texas and become a gun-toting superhero. That is irresponsible legislation.

    steam_sig.png
  • themightypuckthemightypuck MontanaRegistered User regular
    edited July 2008
    Drez wrote: »
    mcdermott wrote: »
    Drez wrote: »
    mcdermott wrote: »
    Drez wrote: »
    That sounds like a very irresponsible law. What if you encounter a plain clothes cop shooting a criminal. Then you could legally shoot the cop?

    Theoretically? Yes. Practically? Watch your cornhole, and don't drop the soap.

    Granted, but I don't think it is responsible to legislate based on prediction of lacadaisical enforcement given certain particulars. I know this isn't exactly practical, but you shouldn't really write in any laws that you wouldn't be A-OK with being enforced 100% of the time.

    Plus it's irresponsible anyway. There are so many things wrong with this. I understand the concept behind it, but it just seems dangerous and even Frontier-sy to me.

    If by "frontier-sy" you mean the idea that's it's alright to use deadly force to protect the life of a fellow human being, call me Davy Crockett. The issue with your plainclothes-cop example isn't so much with the laws regarding defense of life, so much as the special treatment law enforcement officers receive in our justice system in general.

    So while I agree that the law should be consistent, I don't agree that it's particularly flawed. Though, again for clarity, I think the laws regarding defense of property of a third party are (at least in Texas).

    What it basically does is legalize vigilantism. I could go to Texas and become a gun-toting superhero.

    I think you would still be rolling the dice. The law is murky. Public opinion could shift and you might get a nasty conviction.

    “Reject your sense of injury and the injury itself disappears.”
    ― Marcus Aurelius
  • DrezDrez Registered User regular
    edited July 2008
    Drez wrote: »
    mcdermott wrote: »
    Drez wrote: »
    mcdermott wrote: »
    Drez wrote: »
    That sounds like a very irresponsible law. What if you encounter a plain clothes cop shooting a criminal. Then you could legally shoot the cop?

    Theoretically? Yes. Practically? Watch your cornhole, and don't drop the soap.

    Granted, but I don't think it is responsible to legislate based on prediction of lacadaisical enforcement given certain particulars. I know this isn't exactly practical, but you shouldn't really write in any laws that you wouldn't be A-OK with being enforced 100% of the time.

    Plus it's irresponsible anyway. There are so many things wrong with this. I understand the concept behind it, but it just seems dangerous and even Frontier-sy to me.

    If by "frontier-sy" you mean the idea that's it's alright to use deadly force to protect the life of a fellow human being, call me Davy Crockett. The issue with your plainclothes-cop example isn't so much with the laws regarding defense of life, so much as the special treatment law enforcement officers receive in our justice system in general.

    So while I agree that the law should be consistent, I don't agree that it's particularly flawed. Though, again for clarity, I think the laws regarding defense of property of a third party are (at least in Texas).

    What it basically does is legalize vigilantism. I could go to Texas and become a gun-toting superhero.

    I think you would still be rolling the dice. The law is murky. Public opinion could shift and you might get a nasty conviction.

    I think I covered my opinion about this in the quote tree above here: Legislation and enforcement are undeniably tied to each other but it is irresponsible to write something into law that has such a gaping, potential loophole as to allow for the situation I presented.

    In fact, leaving enforcement to "public opinion" to this degree is precisely what is irresponsible.

    steam_sig.png
  • DetharinDetharin Registered User regular
    edited July 2008
    Daedalus wrote: »

    Only if he committed a crime against property. Mexican immigrants are not de jure property.

    [sarcasm]
    Well technically they were illegal immigrants, and from South America IIRC. Nothing really wrong with the later, because hey at least it has America in it, but the former is kinda tricky. It puts you somewhere between invader, and vermin.

    I mean if we use Varminthuntinginfo.com as source then "The term varmint is a concept that puts together all the creatures that, with their excessive breeding habits and favorable conditions all-around, have gotten so abundant that they are practically a nuisance. " It should be perfectly ok to shoot them. The issue facing the Texas courts was not whether shooting them was moral or not. It was whether it was ok to shoot them when their was a law enforcement officer on scene. Obvious it was his job to shoot them. Which would normally be the case.

    However, by carefully checking the books it was determined that calling 911 and waiting 6 minutes did, in essence, constitute the calling of "Dibs". Much like even when your the smallest person in the group and you call shotgun, forcing the tall individuals to sit cramped in back. While they can argue the benefits of you allowing them to sit in front, only you can relinquish Shotgun once called.

    By notifying the police that there were people in need of shooting, and giving sufficient time for them to arrive he is basically saying. "I respect that your profession allows you first dibs on shooting Vermin, however since you took to long I am going to claim dibs before any of my neighbors do." Since dibs is part of the sacred trust, the social contract if you will that separates us from the non-dibs having barbarians I am proud, PROUD, that the courts have stood by it.

    It is unthinkable to me that in this day an age a man should be forced to wait more than 5 minutes for police to arrive and shoot illegal immigrants breaking into a home. The only reason they are allowed first dibs (after the homeowner of course), is due to just how stressful their job can be. Now that the courts have found 5 minutes sufficient time, we can look forward to a golden age where we no longer wonder how long we have to wait before we can shoot vermin breaking into our neighbors homes.

    [/sarcasm]

    If I was kidnapped, woke up in a lab, told they were going to replace my vocal cords with those of Tony Jay, and lock me in a sound booth until the day I die I would look those bastards right in the eye and say "Alright you sons of bitches lets do this. This one is for the children."
  • DrezDrez Registered User regular
    edited July 2008
    Detharin wrote: »
    Daedalus wrote: »

    Only if he committed a crime against property. Mexican immigrants are not de jure property.

    [sarcasm]
    Well technically they were illegal immigrants, and from South America IIRC. Nothing really wrong with the later, because hey at least it has America in it, but the former is kinda tricky. It puts you somewhere between invader, and vermin.

    I mean if we use Varminthuntinginfo.com as source then "The term varmint is a concept that puts together all the creatures that, with their excessive breeding habits and favorable conditions all-around, have gotten so abundant that they are practically a nuisance. " It should be perfectly ok to shoot them. The issue facing the Texas courts was not whether shooting them was moral or not. It was whether it was ok to shoot them when their was a law enforcement officer on scene. Obvious it was his job to shoot them. Which would normally be the case.

    However, by carefully checking the books it was determined that calling 911 and waiting 6 minutes did, in essence, constitute the calling of "Dibs". Much like even when your the smallest person in the group and you call shotgun, forcing the tall individuals to sit cramped in back. While they can argue the benefits of you allowing them to sit in front, only you can relinquish Shotgun once called.

    By notifying the police that there were people in need of shooting, and giving sufficient time for them to arrive he is basically saying. "I respect that your profession allows you first dibs on shooting Vermin, however since you took to long I am going to claim dibs before any of my neighbors do." Since dibs is part of the sacred trust, the social contract if you will that separates us from the non-dibs having barbarians I am proud, PROUD, that the courts have stood by it.

    It is unthinkable to me that in this day an age a man should be forced to wait more than 5 minutes for police to arrive and shoot illegal immigrants breaking into a home. The only reason they are allowed first dibs (after the homeowner of course), is do to just how stressful their job can be. Now that the courts have found 5 minutes sufficient time, we can look forward to a golden age where we no longer wonder how long we have to wait before we can shoot vermin breaking into our neighbors homes.

    [/sarcasm]

    Was that sarcasm?

    steam_sig.png
  • mcdermottmcdermott Registered User regular
    edited July 2008
    Drez wrote: »
    mcdermott wrote: »
    If by "frontier-sy" you mean the idea that's it's alright to use deadly force to protect the life of a fellow human being, call me Davy Crockett. The issue with your plainclothes-cop example isn't so much with the laws regarding defense of life, so much as the special treatment law enforcement officers receive in our justice system in general.

    So while I agree that the law should be consistent, I don't agree that it's particularly flawed. Though, again for clarity, I think the laws regarding defense of property of a third party are (at least in Texas).

    What it basically does is legalize vigilantism. I could go to Texas and become a gun-toting superhero. That is irresponsible legislation.

    Instantaneous defense and vigilantism are two totally different things, at least by any reasonable definition of vigilantism. We're not talking about killing somebody after the fact because you don't think the law will punish them adequately, we're talking about taking immediate action to prevent somebody else from getting killed at that moment.

    You would prefer that somebody with the means to stop it watch somebody else get killed? This is better to you?

    And you could try to become a gun-toting superhero. How many crimes have you witnessed that you'd be able to intervene in? How many has the average Texan? The average person will go their entirely life without getting the "chance" to do so.

    And again, assuming we're talking about sane laws (regarding defense of life) rather than the more insane defense-of-property laws, you're even less likely to run into a situation where you could legally take action.

  • Loren MichaelLoren Michael Registered User regular
    edited July 2008
    Drez wrote: »
    But it's the same thing. I'm not an objectivist and I certainly see the logic and the good in forcing people to be decent, but in the holistic sense I think it is a bad thing for society to enforce.
    Isn't forcing people to be decent one of society's primary functions...?

    2ezikn6.jpg
  • mcdermottmcdermott Registered User regular
    edited July 2008
    Drez wrote: »
    I think I covered my opinion about this in the quote tree above here: Legislation and enforcement are undeniably tied to each other but it is irresponsible to write something into law that has such a gaping, potential loophole as to allow for the situation I presented.

    In fact, leaving enforcement to "public opinion" to this degree is precisely what is irresponsible.

    In any system that involves jury, "public opinion" will necessarily play some role.

    Also, what "gaping loophole" were we talking about again? The plainclothes-cop one? Because that's hardly "gaping." It's more like "something that could possibly happen, like once, sometime...maybe."

  • DrezDrez Registered User regular
    edited July 2008
    Drez wrote: »
    But it's the same thing. I'm not an objectivist and I certainly see the logic and the good in forcing people to be decent, but in the holistic sense I think it is a bad thing for society to enforce.
    Isn't forcing people to be decent one of society's primary functions...?

    I think there's a very clear line between sensible social contracts that improve the life of everyone in a functioning society and "decency." I don't see selfishness, at its root, as against the nature of a functioning society, and I don't see either altruism, selflessness, or (in general) helpfulness as being necessary elements of society for society to function. So, no, I don't think society forces people to be decent nor should it unless your definition of decency differs from mine. I think society forces society to be civil. Which is a whole different thing.

    steam_sig.png
  • DrezDrez Registered User regular
    edited July 2008
    mcdermott wrote: »
    Drez wrote: »
    mcdermott wrote: »
    If by "frontier-sy" you mean the idea that's it's alright to use deadly force to protect the life of a fellow human being, call me Davy Crockett. The issue with your plainclothes-cop example isn't so much with the laws regarding defense of life, so much as the special treatment law enforcement officers receive in our justice system in general.

    So while I agree that the law should be consistent, I don't agree that it's particularly flawed. Though, again for clarity, I think the laws regarding defense of property of a third party are (at least in Texas).

    What it basically does is legalize vigilantism. I could go to Texas and become a gun-toting superhero. That is irresponsible legislation.

    Instantaneous defense and vigilantism are two totally different things, at least by any reasonable definition of vigilantism. We're not talking about killing somebody after the fact because you don't think the law will punish them adequately, we're talking about taking immediate action to prevent somebody else from getting killed at that moment.

    You would prefer that somebody with the means to stop it watch somebody else get killed? This is better to you?

    And you could try to become a gun-toting superhero. How many crimes have you witnessed that you'd be able to intervene in? How many has the average Texan? The average person will go their entirely life without getting the "chance" to do so.

    And again, assuming we're talking about sane laws (regarding defense of life) rather than the more insane defense-of-property laws, you're even less likely to run into a situation where you could legally take action.

    You make it seem like law informs action in a 1:1 ratio. It doesn't.

    No, I wouldn't prefer if someone innocent gets killed over not getting killed, but that doesn't contradict that I think it is a bad idea to have a law that exonerates someone for killing someone that they aren't actively engaged in a kerfuffle with.

    Since this kind of thing would be very rare anyway, why not allow this public opinion you are referring to affect an exception to the rule instead of making a rule to allow for exceptions? It only has the potential to cause problems.

    Not only that but it also seems to advertise killing as an acceptable method of taking someone down. I don't think that's good idea either. Disable, subdue...fine. But it's irresponsible to have a law that provisions for killing someone, as an unaccosted standby citizen, as a takedown method.

    Look, if I had the means to take down someone who was causing pain to someone else, I might regardless of the law. This goes one-hundred fold if the person is a loved one or family member. The law wouldn't inform my action at all. And I think the same would go for most other people put in a situation like that. So I don't think the law does a fucking thing toward enabling this kind of thing. And so I don't think it does anything good at all. Public opinion already protects heroes. There's no good reason to have a law that says you can kill someone who is harming someone else.

    steam_sig.png
  • ScalfinScalfin __BANNED USERS regular
    edited July 2008
    mcdermott wrote: »
    Drez wrote: »
    mcdermott wrote: »
    If by "frontier-sy" you mean the idea that's it's alright to use deadly force to protect the life of a fellow human being, call me Davy Crockett. The issue with your plainclothes-cop example isn't so much with the laws regarding defense of life, so much as the special treatment law enforcement officers receive in our justice system in general.

    So while I agree that the law should be consistent, I don't agree that it's particularly flawed. Though, again for clarity, I think the laws regarding defense of property of a third party are (at least in Texas).

    What it basically does is legalize vigilantism. I could go to Texas and become a gun-toting superhero. That is irresponsible legislation.

    Instantaneous defense and vigilantism are two totally different things, at least by any reasonable definition of vigilantism. We're not talking about killing somebody after the fact because you don't think the law will punish them adequately, we're talking about taking immediate action to prevent somebody else from getting killed at that moment.

    You would prefer that somebody with the means to stop it watch somebody else get killed? This is better to you?

    And you could try to become a gun-toting superhero. How many crimes have you witnessed that you'd be able to intervene in? How many has the average Texan? The average person will go their entirely life without getting the "chance" to do so.

    And again, assuming we're talking about sane laws (regarding defense of life) rather than the more insane defense-of-property laws, you're even less likely to run into a situation where you could legally take action.

    But that's covered by normal laws, so why is the Texas law necessary for anybody not simply looking for an alibi?

    Also, Blackstone's equation.

    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
    The rest of you, I fucking hate you for the fact that I now have a blue dot on this god awful thread.
  • Loren MichaelLoren Michael Registered User regular
    edited July 2008
    Drez wrote: »
    Drez wrote: »
    But it's the same thing. I'm not an objectivist and I certainly see the logic and the good in forcing people to be decent, but in the holistic sense I think it is a bad thing for society to enforce.
    Isn't forcing people to be decent one of society's primary functions...?

    I think there's a very clear line between sensible social contracts that improve the life of everyone in a functioning society and "decency." I don't see selfishness, at its root, as against the nature of a functioning society, and I don't see either altruism, selflessness, or (in general) helpfulness as being necessary elements of society for society to function. So, no, I don't think society forces people to be decent nor should it unless your definition of decency differs from mine. I think society forces society to be civil. Which is a whole different thing.

    Not helping someone in need is more callous than selfish, I think, but whatever.

    I think there's a strong argument to be made that inaction in relieving harm (when doing so would not endanger the reliever) is tantamount to complicity in that harm.

    2ezikn6.jpg
  • mcdermottmcdermott Registered User regular
    edited July 2008
    Scalfin wrote: »
    But that's covered by normal laws, so why is the Texas law necessary for anybody not simply looking for an alibi?

    Are you talking about defense of person or defense of property?

    What "normal" laws cover that? I'm pretty sure that the laws covering self-defense (9.31, 9.32, 9.33 for Texas specifically) are the "normal" laws that cover self defense as well as defense of a third party. Absent those, I'm pretty sure a jury would technically be obligated to convict you of some flavor of homicide.*

    Unless you're just talking about some specific clause of those laws, like the "no duty to retreat" clause of 9.32. But that doesn't change the fact that some kind of law concerning self-defense is necessary to ensure that people don't get convicted of homicide for defending themselves.


    *- Which is also my response to Drez: I'm much more comfortable with whatever "gaping holes" exist in sane self-defense and defense-of-another laws than with trusting a jury not to uphold the law.

  • DrezDrez Registered User regular
    edited July 2008
    Drez wrote: »
    Drez wrote: »
    But it's the same thing. I'm not an objectivist and I certainly see the logic and the good in forcing people to be decent, but in the holistic sense I think it is a bad thing for society to enforce.
    Isn't forcing people to be decent one of society's primary functions...?

    I think there's a very clear line between sensible social contracts that improve the life of everyone in a functioning society and "decency." I don't see selfishness, at its root, as against the nature of a functioning society, and I don't see either altruism, selflessness, or (in general) helpfulness as being necessary elements of society for society to function. So, no, I don't think society forces people to be decent nor should it unless your definition of decency differs from mine. I think society forces society to be civil. Which is a whole different thing.

    Not helping someone in need is more callous than selfish, I think, but whatever.

    I think there's a strong argument to be made that inaction in relieving harm (when doing so would not endanger the reliever) is tantamount to complicity in that harm.

    I know there are. In fact, I was just listening to the I, Robot audiobook today for the tenth-or-so time, which makes that exact argument through implication. I just don't really agree with it.

    I do think it is decent to try and help and protect your fellow man, especially if it comes at zero cost to you. And I think it is indecent not to. I just don't think society should require people to be decent. And I don't think indecency makes you complicit in anything you may observe. The people responsible for Doing Bad Things are the people that Do Bad Things, not the people that Watch People Do Bad Things unless the watching actively propagates the Doing Of Bad Things.

    Granted we could go on a severe tangent here about responsibility and the like and drudge up a whole lot of historical stuff: like do oppressed people have a moral responsibilty to revolt, did we have a moral responsibiilty to kill Saddam because he was causing harm, etc. and so on for forever but in the end I don't think there is anything to be gained from such a tangent and on a person-to-person level I don't think human beings should be held accountable for the "through inaction allow someone else to come to harm" rule. Maybe morally, but never legally.

    steam_sig.png
  • DrezDrez Registered User regular
    edited July 2008
    mcdermott wrote: »
    Scalfin wrote: »
    But that's covered by normal laws, so why is the Texas law necessary for anybody not simply looking for an alibi?

    Are you talking about defense of person or defense of property?

    What "normal" laws cover that? I'm pretty sure that the laws covering self-defense (9.31, 9.32, 9.33 for Texas specifically) are the "normal" laws that cover self defense as well as defense of a third party. Absent those, I'm pretty sure a jury would technically be obligated to convict you of some flavor of homicide.*

    Unless you're just talking about some specific clause of those laws, like the "no duty to retreat" clause of 9.32. But that doesn't change the fact that some kind of law concerning self-defense is necessary to ensure that people don't get convicted of homicide for defending themselves.


    *- Which is also my response to Drez: I'm much more comfortable with whatever "gaping holes" exist in sane self-defense and defense-of-another laws than with trusting a jury not to uphold the law.

    And I'm much more comfortable with a potential "hero" going to jail than potential criminals not going to jail.

    steam_sig.png
  • DetharinDetharin Registered User regular
    edited July 2008
    Drez wrote: »
    But it's the same thing. I'm not an objectivist and I certainly see the logic and the good in forcing people to be decent, but in the holistic sense I think it is a bad thing for society to enforce.
    Isn't forcing people to be decent one of society's primary functions...?

    If your talking about the belief that the government's job is to make people... better. And I do not hold with that.

    The government exists to serve the people, not control the people. The government does not exist to force people to do things. It exists to punish those who break the laws setup by the people. It exists to collect taxes, build roads, and secure borders. Not to force people to behave a certain way.

    To butcher a second quote "I’m the enemy, cause I like to think, I like to read, I’m into freedom of speech and freedom of choice. I’m the kind of guy who likes to sit in the grease and spoon and wonder, gee, should I have the T-bone steak or the jumbo rack of barbeque ribs with a side order of gravy fries. I want high cholesterol. I want to eat bacon and butter and bucket of cheese, OK. I want to smoke a cuban cigar the size of Cincinati in the non smoking section. I want to run through the streets naked with green jello all over my body reading playboy magazine, why? Because I suddenly might feel the need to do so."

    If I was kidnapped, woke up in a lab, told they were going to replace my vocal cords with those of Tony Jay, and lock me in a sound booth until the day I die I would look those bastards right in the eye and say "Alright you sons of bitches lets do this. This one is for the children."
  • mcdermottmcdermott Registered User regular
    edited July 2008
    Drez wrote: »
    mcdermott wrote: »
    Scalfin wrote: »
    But that's covered by normal laws, so why is the Texas law necessary for anybody not simply looking for an alibi?

    Are you talking about defense of person or defense of property?

    What "normal" laws cover that? I'm pretty sure that the laws covering self-defense (9.31, 9.32, 9.33 for Texas specifically) are the "normal" laws that cover self defense as well as defense of a third party. Absent those, I'm pretty sure a jury would technically be obligated to convict you of some flavor of homicide.*

    Unless you're just talking about some specific clause of those laws, like the "no duty to retreat" clause of 9.32. But that doesn't change the fact that some kind of law concerning self-defense is necessary to ensure that people don't get convicted of homicide for defending themselves.


    *- Which is also my response to Drez: I'm much more comfortable with whatever "gaping holes" exist in sane self-defense and defense-of-another laws than with trusting a jury not to uphold the law.

    And I'm much more comfortable with a potential "hero" going to jail than potential criminals not going to jail.

    Yeah, see, that's about the opposite of how the justice system is supposed to work. Generally we prefer to have a few criminals go free than have people go to prison for defending their own life or the life of another.

    And that fact that you're comfortable with the opposite makes any further discourse with you pretty useless.

  • ScalfinScalfin __BANNED USERS regular
    edited July 2008
    mcdermott wrote: »
    Scalfin wrote: »
    But that's covered by normal laws, so why is the Texas law necessary for anybody not simply looking for an alibi?

    Are you talking about defense of person or defense of property?

    What "normal" laws cover that? I'm pretty sure that the laws covering self-defense (9.31, 9.32, 9.33 for Texas specifically) are the "normal" laws that cover self defense as well as defense of a third party. Absent those, I'm pretty sure a jury would technically be obligated to convict you of some flavor of homicide.*

    Unless you're just talking about some specific clause of those laws, like the "no duty to retreat" clause of 9.32. But that doesn't change the fact that some kind of law concerning self-defense is necessary to ensure that people don't get convicted of homicide for defending themselves.


    *- Which is also my response to Drez: I'm much more comfortable with whatever "gaping holes" exist in sane self-defense and defense-of-another laws than with trusting a jury not to uphold the law.

    By normal, I mean those that exist in states where the citizens don't seem to have at least five or so complexes. I guess that would leave BosWash and the west coast.

    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
    The rest of you, I fucking hate you for the fact that I now have a blue dot on this god awful thread.
  • ScalfinScalfin __BANNED USERS regular
    edited July 2008
    mcdermott wrote: »
    Drez wrote: »
    mcdermott wrote: »
    Scalfin wrote: »
    But that's covered by normal laws, so why is the Texas law necessary for anybody not simply looking for an alibi?

    Are you talking about defense of person or defense of property?

    What "normal" laws cover that? I'm pretty sure that the laws covering self-defense (9.31, 9.32, 9.33 for Texas specifically) are the "normal" laws that cover self defense as well as defense of a third party. Absent those, I'm pretty sure a jury would technically be obligated to convict you of some flavor of homicide.*

    Unless you're just talking about some specific clause of those laws, like the "no duty to retreat" clause of 9.32. But that doesn't change the fact that some kind of law concerning self-defense is necessary to ensure that people don't get convicted of homicide for defending themselves.


    *- Which is also my response to Drez: I'm much more comfortable with whatever "gaping holes" exist in sane self-defense and defense-of-another laws than with trusting a jury not to uphold the law.

    And I'm much more comfortable with a potential "hero" going to jail than potential criminals not going to jail.

    Yeah, see, that's about the opposite of how the justice system is supposed to work. Generally we prefer to have a few criminals go free than have people go to prison for defending their own life or the life of another.

    And that fact that you're comfortable with the opposite makes any further discourse with you pretty useless.

    You really are showing the most mental dissonance I've seen out of an Orwell novel. What he wants is a law that outlaws murder rather than let some dumbass become judge, jury, and executioner.

    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
    The rest of you, I fucking hate you for the fact that I now have a blue dot on this god awful thread.
  • DrezDrez Registered User regular
    edited July 2008
    mcdermott wrote: »
    Drez wrote: »
    mcdermott wrote: »
    Scalfin wrote: »
    But that's covered by normal laws, so why is the Texas law necessary for anybody not simply looking for an alibi?

    Are you talking about defense of person or defense of property?

    What "normal" laws cover that? I'm pretty sure that the laws covering self-defense (9.31, 9.32, 9.33 for Texas specifically) are the "normal" laws that cover self defense as well as defense of a third party. Absent those, I'm pretty sure a jury would technically be obligated to convict you of some flavor of homicide.*

    Unless you're just talking about some specific clause of those laws, like the "no duty to retreat" clause of 9.32. But that doesn't change the fact that some kind of law concerning self-defense is necessary to ensure that people don't get convicted of homicide for defending themselves.


    *- Which is also my response to Drez: I'm much more comfortable with whatever "gaping holes" exist in sane self-defense and defense-of-another laws than with trusting a jury not to uphold the law.

    And I'm much more comfortable with a potential "hero" going to jail than potential criminals not going to jail.

    Yeah, see, that's about the opposite of how the justice system is supposed to work. Generally we prefer to have a few criminals go free than have people go to prison for defending their own life or the life of another.

    And that fact that you're comfortable with the opposite makes any further discourse with you pretty useless.

    Well, no, in fact that's not how the justice system works at all. What you're reffering to is the common belief that one innocent person on death row is worse than one-hundred criminals on the street, or whatever numbers you'd like to use, which is not at all what this is like. Not one bit.

    The justice system isn't supposed to provision for people taking justice into their own hands, which is exactly what a law allowing a citizen to make a snap judgment and kill another people in defense of another person does. That kind of activity is relegated to cops and the military, and only sparingly to these authoritative groups. Self-defense laws certainly make sense too. But a law that legalizes killing someone out of defense of a third party? You seem to think it should be obvious that this is a good law. I think it is obviously retarded. So yeah maybe discourse between you and me on this particular subject is going to be tough because my brain can't get around how obscenely irresponsible and stupid this kind of thing is.

    steam_sig.png
  • mcdermottmcdermott Registered User regular
    edited July 2008
    Scalfin wrote: »
    By normal, I mean those that exist in states where the citizens don't seem to have at least five or so complexes. I guess that would leave BosWash and the west coast.

    Um yeah...whatever.
    You really are showing the most mental dissonance I've seen out of an Orwell novel. What he wants is a law that outlaws murder rather than turn a blind eye to it.

    We have laws that outlaw murder. He wants a law that says it's murder to protect another human being from a deadly assault. Which yeah, I disagree with.

    I don't see how thinking murder is bad and thinking defense of yourself or others is good are mutually exclusive. I guess that's what I get for not being from BosWash.

    Dipshit.


    EDIT: Also, I challenge you to find me a state that doesn't have statutes allowing for the use of deadly force in defense of another. Seems even California does (so maybe that does only leave BosWash). Happy hunting.

  • DrezDrez Registered User regular
    edited July 2008
    mcdermott wrote: »
    Scalfin wrote: »
    By normal, I mean those that exist in states where the citizens don't seem to have at least five or so complexes. I guess that would leave BosWash and the west coast.

    Um yeah...whatever.
    You really are showing the most mental dissonance I've seen out of an Orwell novel. What he wants is a law that outlaws murder rather than turn a blind eye to it.

    We have laws that outlaw murder. He wants a law that says it's murder to protect another human being from a deadly assault. Which yeah, I disagree with.

    I don't see how thinking murder is bad and thinking defense of yourself or others is good are mutually exclusive. I guess that's what I get for not being from BosWash.

    Dipshit.

    I don't "want a law" at all. What I don't want is a law that says it's okay for random citizens to kill other random citizens that they think are threatening other people. Cops can't even seem to get it right and they've been trained to make snap judgments. Jesus, are you really even thinking about this at all?

    steam_sig.png
  • DrezDrez Registered User regular
    edited July 2008
    mcdermott wrote: »
    EDIT: Also, I challenge you to find me a state that doesn't have statutes allowing for the use of deadly force in defense of another. Seems even California does (so maybe that does only leave BosWash). Happy hunting.

    Look, I haven't even read these laws. I'm commenting on how they've been presented in this thread. Someone - was it you? - stated that if you could convince a judge that you simply thought the person you killed was going to harm/kill another person, then you would be acquitted. That is not good law.

    steam_sig.png
  • ScalfinScalfin __BANNED USERS regular
    edited July 2008
    mcdermott wrote: »
    Scalfin wrote: »
    By normal, I mean those that exist in states where the citizens don't seem to have at least five or so complexes. I guess that would leave BosWash and the west coast.

    Um yeah...whatever.
    You really are showing the most mental dissonance I've seen out of an Orwell novel. What he wants is a law that outlaws murder rather than turn a blind eye to it.

    We have laws that outlaw murder. He wants a law that says it's murder to protect another human being from a deadly assault. Which yeah, I disagree with.

    I don't see how thinking murder is bad and thinking defense of yourself or others is good are mutually exclusive. I guess that's what I get for not being from BosWash.

    Dipshit.


    EDIT: Also, I challenge you to find me a state that doesn't have statutes allowing for the use of deadly force in defense of another. Seems even California does (so maybe that does only leave BosWash). Happy hunting.

    I meant as opposed to the Texas laws, which seem to come down to "blackie was leering at my woman" being a valid excuse.

    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
    The rest of you, I fucking hate you for the fact that I now have a blue dot on this god awful thread.
  • mcdermottmcdermott Registered User regular
    edited July 2008
    Drez wrote: »
    mcdermott wrote: »
    EDIT: Also, I challenge you to find me a state that doesn't have statutes allowing for the use of deadly force in defense of another. Seems even California does (so maybe that does only leave BosWash). Happy hunting.

    Look, I haven't even read these laws. I'm commenting on how they've been presented in this thread. Someone - was it you? - stated that if you could convince a judge that you simply thought the person you killed was going to harm/kill another person, then you would be acquitted. That is not good law.

    No, it's not if you thought the person was going to harm/kill another.

    You have to also show that a reasonable person would have believed the same.

    Which, of course, is something you'd have to argue with lawyers and convince a jury of your peers of. Which, in theory, is what Joe Horn had to do (only it didn't get past a grand jury). It's not like you just tell the cops you totally thought he was going to kill somebody and it's all good....you will end up needing a lawyer and going to court either way.
    I don't "want a law" at all. What I don't want is a law that says it's okay for random citizens to kill other random citizens that they think are threatening other people. Cops can't even seem to get it right and they've been trained to make snap judgments. Jesus, are you really even thinking about this at all?

    But see, in order for you not to go to prison for defending a loved one or friend when you know absolutely that they're being threatened, you are going to need a law saying it's okay. That's how the law works.
    I meant as opposed to the Texas laws, which seem to come down to "blackie was leering at my woman" being a valid excuse.

    No, that's the Texas enforcement. The only major difference between Texas law and that of most of your more "progressive" states is that you can choose self-defense over trying to run away first. Well, that and their laws concerning defense of property, which I've already stated are far too lax.

    But it's cool. Keep being a dipshit. Have you even read the Texas laws?
    Spoiler:

  • MikeManMikeMan Registered User regular
    edited July 2008
    Drez wrote: »
    I do think it is decent to try and help and protect your fellow man, especially if it comes at zero cost to you. And I think it is indecent not to. I just don't think society should require people to be decent. And I don't think indecency makes you complicit in anything you may observe. The people responsible for Doing Bad Things are the people that Do Bad Things, not the people that Watch People Do Bad Things unless the watching actively propagates the Doing Of Bad Things.

    I think sitting around and, say, eating a sandwich, whilst watching, say, a 12 year old girl drowning in a pool when you could easily save her, is more than "indecent."

    It should be criminal.

    HOW DO YOU FUCK UP BAGELS. YOU BOIL THE WATER. PUT IN THE NOODLES
  • ScalfinScalfin __BANNED USERS regular
    edited July 2008
    mcdermott wrote: »
    Drez wrote: »
    mcdermott wrote: »
    EDIT: Also, I challenge you to find me a state that doesn't have statutes allowing for the use of deadly force in defense of another. Seems even California does (so maybe that does only leave BosWash). Happy hunting.

    Look, I haven't even read these laws. I'm commenting on how they've been presented in this thread. Someone - was it you? - stated that if you could convince a judge that you simply thought the person you killed was going to harm/kill another person, then you would be acquitted. That is not good law.

    No, it's not if you thought the person was going to harm/kill another.

    You have to also show that a reasonable person would have believed the same.

    Which, of course, is something you'd have to argue with lawyers and convince a jury of your peers of. Which, in theory, is what Joe Horn had to do (only it didn't get past a grand jury). It's not like you just tell the cops you totally thought he was going to kill somebody and it's all good....you will end up needing a lawyer and going to court either way.
    I don't "want a law" at all. What I don't want is a law that says it's okay for random citizens to kill other random citizens that they think are threatening other people. Cops can't even seem to get it right and they've been trained to make snap judgments. Jesus, are you really even thinking about this at all?

    But see, in order for you not to go to prison for defending a loved one or friend when you know absolutely that they're being threatened, you are going to need a law saying it's okay. That's how the law works.
    I meant as opposed to the Texas laws, which seem to come down to "blackie was leering at my woman" being a valid excuse.

    No, that's the Texas enforcement. The only major difference between Texas law and that of most of your more "progressive" states is that you can choose self-defense over trying to run away first. Well, that and their laws concerning defense of property, which I've already stated are far too lax.

    But it's cool. Keep being a dipshit. Have you even read the Texas laws?
    Spoiler:

    Stand your ground+the law you suggest= saying you thought someone else was in danger with no need to sustantiate (as if the burden of proof put on any prosecutor wasn't enough).

    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
    The rest of you, I fucking hate you for the fact that I now have a blue dot on this god awful thread.
  • mcdermottmcdermott Registered User regular
    edited July 2008
    Scalfin wrote: »
    Stand your ground+the law you suggest= saying you thought someone else was in danger with no need to sustantiate (as if the burden of proof put on any prosecutor wasn't enough).

    Which law am I suggesting? I'm pretty sure all the laws I've talked about are the actual law in many/most states (except for the "stand your ground" bit).

    Also, your "burden of proof" issue is easy to solve...make it an affirmative defense, just like mental deficiency. The prosecutor's burden is to show you killed the person, and make it your burden to show (to a jury's satisfaction) that it was justified to defend yourself or another.

    Which, oddly, I thought was already the case, but I could obviously be wrong on that one.

  • ScalfinScalfin __BANNED USERS regular
    edited July 2008
    mcdermott wrote: »
    Scalfin wrote: »
    Stand your ground+the law you suggest= saying you thought someone else was in danger with no need to sustantiate (as if the burden of proof put on any prosecutor wasn't enough).

    Which law am I suggesting? I'm pretty sure all the laws I've talked about are the actual law in many/most states (except for the "stand your ground" bit).

    Also, your "burden of proof" issue is easy to solve...make it an affirmative defense, just like mental deficiency. The prosecutor's burden is to show you killed the person, and make it your burden to show (to a jury's satisfaction) that it was justified to defend yourself or another.

    Which, oddly, I thought already the case, but I could obviously be wrong on that one.

    I was under the impression that it wasn't the case, which made the stand your ground law an elimination of the only way that a prosecutor could show that you're lying: by the fact that you had a good alternative.

    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
    The rest of you, I fucking hate you for the fact that I now have a blue dot on this god awful thread.
  • mcdermottmcdermott Registered User regular
    edited July 2008
    I was under the impression that it wasn't the case, which made the stand your ground law an elimination of the only way that a prosecutor could show that you're lying: by the fact that you had a good alternative.

    Well, considering that I was largely arguing in regards to self-defense/defense-of-another laws in general, and not stand-your-ground laws in particular, this still isn't relevant to most of the conversation.

    And you're correct, as soon as SD is raised the prosecution must prove that it wasn't. But that's not the only way a prosecutor could show that you're lying...they can also show beyond a reasonable doubt that the person wasn't a threat. It's not a no doubt standard, and people still get convicted daily somehow.

  • ScalfinScalfin __BANNED USERS regular
    edited July 2008
    mcdermott wrote: »
    I was under the impression that it wasn't the case, which made the stand your ground law an elimination of the only way that a prosecutor could show that you're lying: by the fact that you had a good alternative.

    Well, considering that I was largely arguing in regards to self-defense/defense-of-another laws in general, and not stand-your-ground laws in particular, this still isn't relevant to most of the conversation.

    And you're correct, as soon as SD is raised the prosecution must prove that it wasn't. But that's not the only way a prosecutor could show that you're lying...they can also show beyond a reasonable doubt that the person wasn't a threat. It's not a no doubt standard, and people still get convicted daily somehow.

    But couldn't the guy just say the victim looked bigger in the light or something?

    Oh, right, I'm the only one who's this anal about technicalities. Most people wouldn't remember that the trial was about his perspective.

    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
    The rest of you, I fucking hate you for the fact that I now have a blue dot on this god awful thread.
  • DrezDrez Registered User regular
    edited July 2008
    MikeMan wrote: »
    Drez wrote: »
    I do think it is decent to try and help and protect your fellow man, especially if it comes at zero cost to you. And I think it is indecent not to. I just don't think society should require people to be decent. And I don't think indecency makes you complicit in anything you may observe. The people responsible for Doing Bad Things are the people that Do Bad Things, not the people that Watch People Do Bad Things unless the watching actively propagates the Doing Of Bad Things.

    I think sitting around and, say, eating a sandwich, whilst watching, say, a 12 year old girl drowning in a pool when you could easily save her, is more than "indecent."

    It should be criminal.

    Okay.

    I don't.

    steam_sig.png
  • mcdermottmcdermott Registered User regular
    edited July 2008
    Scalfin wrote: »
    mcdermott wrote: »
    I was under the impression that it wasn't the case, which made the stand your ground law an elimination of the only way that a prosecutor could show that you're lying: by the fact that you had a good alternative.

    Well, considering that I was largely arguing in regards to self-defense/defense-of-another laws in general, and not stand-your-ground laws in particular, this still isn't relevant to most of the conversation.

    And you're correct, as soon as SD is raised the prosecution must prove that it wasn't. But that's not the only way a prosecutor could show that you're lying...they can also show beyond a reasonable doubt that the person wasn't a threat. It's not a no doubt standard, and people still get convicted daily somehow.

    But couldn't the guy just say the victim looked bigger in the light or something?

    Oh, right, I'm the only one who's this anal about technicalities. Most people wouldn't remember that the trial was about his perspective.

    Does Batman have time to prepare?

    Oh, I'm sorry...I thought it was stupid question hour.

    The thing is, you can generally still only argue justification if either A) the guy was threatening you with deadly force, or B) the guy was committing a fairly limited set of other crimes (kidnapping, rape, down to robbery which I'll admit is a bit suspect). Absent that, you're still hosed.

    Out of curiosity, are false self-defense claims really this big of an issue, statistically? Like, are people faking self-defense left and right to commit actual murders?* I'm not suggesting that it doesn't happen, but it seems likely to me that at the end of the day it's not happening often enough to outweigh the benefits of people being able to, you know, defend themselves or others from grievous bodily harm or death.

    * - Or rather, getting away with it?

  • emnmnmeemnmnme Heard about this on conservative radio:Registered User regular
    edited July 2008
    mcdermott wrote: »
    Spoiler:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=apMyjOAacyA

    easybossfight_zps4752c132.gif
  • GungHoGungHo Registered User regular
    edited July 2008
    Clearly Daedalus, Mr. Horn's killing of these two individuals was a public service. He probably brought down the crime rate single-handedly through his actions.
    Actually, his laywer was whining a bit about the fact that Horn hasn't gotten his shotgun back, so, depending on how you look at it... either the crime rate could be down or up in his cul-de-sac.
    ElJeffe wrote: »
    As I understand the situation, there were two men. One may have been running towards Horn. The other was definitely running away. Even if he may have been justified in shooting the former, isn't he pretty clearly not justified in shooting the latter? Legality aside, I mean. We already know that Crazy Texas Law allows you to shoot people at random for looking at you funny.
    They were both in the street when they were shot, so I'd say that he wasn't justified in doing it at all, and he deliberately went out and put himself into a confrontation, per his 911 call. The confrontation was over as soon as they saw the shotgun and fled.

    Though, I could see that if the other guy was far enough away in the dark that you might not know which direction he was facing. Though, him getting "smaller" would be a clue.
    Feral wrote: »
    I'll point out, though, that this is a very very very common meme in pro-gun circles.

    "You gotta have a gun and be prepared to defend yourself because the cops have no duty to protect you!" and then they quote a bunch of Supreme Court decisions that I can't remember off the top of my head.

    I'm just telling you this in case you find it an interesting anthropological curiosity.
    In this case, the meme is a bit true. You cannot sue the cops for not coming to your house and saving you or your stuff in 5 or 10 mintues (or 5 or 10 hours). You cannot sue the firefighters if they didn't pull your puppy out in time. You cannot sue the EMTs because there was traffic on the road and you lost feeling in your jerking-off hand because you didn't get clotbusters in time. (But, now you can give yourself a "stranger" on demand!)

    All it means is that they're not legally obligated to be everywhere you need them to be right when you need them to be there. It doesn't mean they'll just point and laugh while you get the shit kicked out of you if they're right there.
    ElJeffe wrote: »
    mcdermott wrote: »
    Also, for all the folks joking about shooting cops due to "stand your ground" or "castle" laws, think again. Nearly all of them have exceptions for law enforcement officers in the performance of their duties...which you can count on "in the performance of their duties" being interpreted very liberally if you ever actually shoot one.
    Yeah, I've heard enough cases to realize that if you ever shoot a cop for any reason whatsoever, no matter how stupid the cop was being and no matter how justified you were in fearing for your life, you're screwed.
    That G. Gordon Liddy BS just needs to die.
    Feral wrote: »
    What if you're Texan and the cop was Mexican?

    Does your head explode from the cognitive dissonance?
    This is a tangent, but it's why I am in love with Brazilians. When we pulled "free" visa reciprocity for Brazil because they might have terr'rists, they pulled their "free" visas for us in return and started deporting people. And we had the gall to be pissy about it. Hah.
    mcdermott wrote: »
    On a serious note, I'm not even talking about makeshift single-shot weapons (which are incredibly easy to make). I'm talking about actual semi-automatic pistols. I should go find that video again. Dude in a turban just sits there with his little forge and machine tools or whatever in his mud hut cranking out semi-automatic handguns.

    Again, they probably aren't the highest quality you'll ever run into, but if you point them at a sales clerk he will give you the money in the register.
    My great-grandfather made single-action revolvers with his metal-working tools and forge. My grandfather made an "internal" 1911 clone (looked different on the outside, but had almost identical internals) using the same, basic equipment. Actually, he said if you had all the right "stuff", a decent single-action semi auto was technically simpler than a revolver, and when he shot it, it shot as well as any Colt. He stopped after his friend, the sheriff, kindly informed him that what he was doing was illegal and that the feds were looking for people doing that after WW2. He also had to shut down his "fireworks" production, as manufacturing your own M-80s and shit was also not exactly looked upon with kind eyes.

    He also said he knew how to make a replacement sear for a Thompson. I asked him how he learned how to do that or why he'd ever want to, considering he didn't own one and they were outlawed and he gave me a strange look. Old fuckers from East Texas scare the shit out of me.

    Anyway, I honestly feel that in most parts of this country, people don't have the skills or equipment to do that kind of thing any more. We're fucked if the power ever goes out.

    "Adios, mofo" -- TX Gov Rick Perry (R)
  • PeekingDuckPeekingDuck __BANNED USERS
    edited July 2008
    You're welcome to stay with me at my place in East Texas. My cousin is leaving Vegas to start up an organic farm and already has the contract with whole foods in Houston, so I think we should have sufficient funds to implement a rainwater capture system. There is cattle out there and nice trees. The front is cleared and there are alarms notifying gate entry. You can bring your great grandpa if he is still around, he'll probably be helpful. I've also got some land on Lake Livingston in case we need to fish a bit.

    I'm in Austin right now though... so call first!

    Just realized you're in Houston, you guys have had huge organic market growth recently.

Sign In or Register to comment.