O/T: Protection

Have you seen a perp's relatives sue the victim in a justifiable shooting in a CD state? That *is* what we were talking about.

I would disagree, but...

e. none of the above. Back to you.

Make life easier for the rest of us. Either learn to snip or top post.

I'll reverse that. Make life easier on the rest of us, learn to inline post.

At least I didn't post a whole page of irrrelevent horse s*it.

Posting anything after what you wrote was irrelevant.

WTH were we talking about?

Didn't realize I was anonomyzed - Oregon.

Some of our civil law needs serious work ...

On Tue, 22 Dec 2009 02:54:45 -0800, the infamous "LDosser" scrawled the following:

Hello, fellow Webfoot! (LJ, from Grass Pants, OR)

-- REMEMBER: The sooner you fall behind, the more time you'll have to catch up!

Beaverton!

You think ours are bad, how about those libel laws in Europe? Yikes!

NTM their criminal law.

Because I offered a hint about BUG SPRAY? You raised up on your hinder legs over BUG SPRAY? You accuse me of outrageous pro-gun comments when we were talking about BUG SPRAY? Guns weren't mentioned until you brought it up. Listen up, slick, there's a big difference between a firearm and BUG SPRAY - even a pro-gun nutter like me knows that. As to stereotype, I don't think there IS a stereotype for exterminators. Well, Tom Delay excepted.

First, every "right" I have imposes a "duty" on the government, not me. If I have a right to worship as I please, the state has a duty not to interfere. If I have a "right" to freedom of speech, the government has a duty to not impose unreasonable restrictions. For constitutional rights, the methodology is called "strict scrutiny."

Second, "freedom of speech" (actually the "duty" to not suppress) applies only to a government entity, not newsgroups.

On Tue, 22 Dec 2009 14:29:31 -0800, the infamous "LDosser" scrawled the following:

Way up there. When I moved up from CA, I went from 50 miles north of the Mexican border to 50 miles north of the California border (_exactly_ one state), so I'm still a Southerner, I guess.

-- REMEMBER: The sooner you fall behind, the more time you'll have to catch up!

Okay. Oregon has a Castle law (ORS 161.209-229). It permits the use of deadly force in a number of situations. While the law doesn't say so, the Oregon Supreme Court has found that there is no duty to retreat. That said, Oregon does not apparently have an exemption from liability for a righteous shoot.

An example of exemption from liability is the Texas law:

Sec. 83.001. CIVIL IMMUNITY [AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE]. A defendant who uses force or deadly force that is justified under Chapter 9 [Section 9.32], Penal Code, is immune from civil liability for personal injury or death that results from the defendant's use of force or deadly force, as applicable.

Many other states have something similar.

Note those words: "Affirmative defense". It doesn't mean that you can't be sued. It means that if you can prove self-defense you will be absolved of liability--you'll still be out legal fees and court costs and lost time.

No, because you continue to mouth off like Johnny Carson parodying a hunter.

You have a duty to use your rights responsibly. Right now with all the inflammatory rhetoric you are making a fool of yourself, which you are welcome to do, but you are also serving as an embarrassment to others in your own camp.

Which is irrelevant to the point.

Most insecticides are chemical variants of military nerve agents, and work by interfering with neurotransmitters. Wasp spray has a good chance of working, so long as you don't care about any possible long term toxic effects.

Most wasp spray is based on a pyrethroid of one kind or another. In general pyrethroids have very low toxicity to humans--some are approved for treating clothing to provide insect protection. The real knockdown power isn't in the insecticide anyway, it's the mineral spirits--squirt a wasp with WD-40 and it drops just as fast and doesn't usually get back up.