E4 No More

That wooshing sound was the point going over your head.

The courts have ruled that contempt of cop is not illegal, but contempt of court is?

Really? Where does it say that it only applies to political speech in the First Amnedment? Not going to argue that the courts have perverted interpretations to consolidate power for their own purposes, but I've never seen what you claim in the actual Amendment whci is where they are supposed to have their power.

Which is interesting since an exception to the First Amendment was never written.

I don't agree with what she did at all, but it's kind of ironic how free speech does not apply in an American court of law.

Exactly, or maybe add "I was in fear of my life."

Well stated, even with the wrong word error!

Yes, it does, which makes it ironic how he complains of bad information.

The poll is: "What should your objective be in a self-defense shooting?"; not what do you tell the police, prosecuting attorney, or judge. It's not what you say in in a civil suit, or how you spin it to make yourself feel better about having to act in your own defense. But if your mindset in not such that you are willing to kill you will most likely lose just as that deputy in California lost. Hesitation is sure to bite you right in the azz every time.

It's called a mindset, and is why I am likely to survive while you are not. It's like the deputy in California who screamed like a little girl while trying to get his murderer to put down his weapon so that the deputy didn't have to kill him. The video link has been posted here before. He was trained, but he wasn't prepared to actually kill. If you aren't prepared to kill then you will lose. Again, justified is justified and you seem pathologically unable to understand this along with many others here on the forum.

It wouldn't pay me enough to listen to all of the heads telling me how they want me to vote on everything and cussing me out on how I didn't vote the way that they wanted me to because they are in the minority in my district, that's for sure.

As I said, argue that with the lawyers. The law is pretty clear: If the shooting was justified they cannot sue you. Mr. Stegall says they'd have a pissant's chance in hell of finding someone who would take their case to challenge it without all the cash up front, and then they'd end up paying your costs too.

Wrong. Argue that with the lawyers on the forum. I've already asked Stegall about it.

If by drawing the attacker flees then you are no longer justified now are you? I believe that I made that distinction when I said that you are either justified or not. If you are justified you cannot be sued, so your intent doesn't matter regardless of what you post on a gun forum. Deadly force is deadly force, and you were either justified or you weren't when you use it. End of story.

Most of the gas in middle Tennessee comes in by barges on the river that is now flooded. I used to work for Kimbro Oil which goes by TriStar now.

Deadly force is either authorized or not folks. You are either justified to use it or not. If you are not justified you are screwed either way that you answer this poll. If you are justified then it doesn't matter how you answer this poll. You can play semantics all you want, but it really doesn't change facts: you were either justified or not.

Since a murderer is someone who kills unjustly in the eyes of the law, I don't think "murderers" applies at all to the question/poll.

I don't know why anyone would be squeamish about saying they'd intend to kill an attacker. If someone is trying to kill me I'm going to do my damndest to kill them first.

To kill is to stop the threat. You don't know if they are no longer a threat until they are dead. Many people have feigned surrender to police only to turn around and kill the officer. Since I'm no longer an officer the only way I'll stop is if the guy shows me nuth'n but azzhole and elbows.

So are those of you following this going to post a synopsis of the law for those of us who haven't read all 55 pages of this thread?

Like I said, I saw nothing on the news stating this. Blowing up a rig loaded with volatile substances would be easy. The tough part would be getting on the rig itself.

Sadly, not much even on Fox.

You mean like the holes where they have been blowing up other crap on the west coast?

Thanks. I had heard nothing about the cause at all, and I have seen quite a bit of the coverage.

Considering the number of eco-terrorists that we have in this country, am I the only one here who finds it suspicious that an off-shore oil rig mysteriously blows up shortly after the administration announces that they are going to open up the coast to more drilling?