On 2002-06-07 15:45, Ronin wrote:
Ok, stepping in with my semi-professional knowledge here...
All you have to do to sue someone is show economic loss. It is up to the judge to determine if he wants to allow that kind of nonsense in his court. Some do, some don't; that's why sue happy people go judge shopping.

Quote:

2: under the laws of the united states, the desicion is in favor of chihawk. leathel force may only be taken in the event the home owner is in need to protect his own life [and families].

This varies. In Texas, for example, a person may use the same level of force to protect a third person who would have the right to defend themselves as that third person is allowed. If Bob is attacking Joe with a knife (deadly force), I have the right, if not moral obligation, to use deadly force to protect Joe. (This is where the police in Texas get their authority to use force, BTW) Note that this is under the Penal Code (criminal laws). Being justified in your actions in criminal law does not protect you from being sued in civil law, unless the state specifically has a law forbidding it, such as the so-called Good Samaritan lwas designed to protect people who try to give first aid and get sued when ther actions have less than perfect results.

Also note, that just because you are legally justified in doing something doesn't mean that nothing happens to you. Defense (whether of self or another) is considered a defense to prosecution, meaning that when you go before the Grand Jury for having used force, the grand Jury will usually "no bill" you (meaning that they have determined that you were legally justified, and that the charges against you are pointless). If for some reason you are true billed (the Grand Jury decides to let it go to trial) any lawyer worth his salt will immediately use the defense to prosecution to protect you.

When a person starts a assault, but then decides to disengage, if the defender continues to use force after the attacker indicates that he wishes to stop, the defender then becomes the attacker and is just as legally guilty of assault. (Police in this situation may then use whatever force is necessary to arrest the individual and take them into custody, but no more; but this a separate issue).

Again, this will differ by state, but in Texas, if you shoot somoene breaking into your house, they do not have to be inside the house. Not only is it pointless to drag the body inside like many people are told to do, since it is easy to tell when this happens, it is needless. Once you have determined that you (or someone else that you have a right to protect) is in danger, you may use appropriate force to defend at any time the threat exists, regardless of where the threat happens to be at the moment. Texas and some other states do not require a retreat before defensive force is used, while some other states do require it. I agree with Texas law because there are times when it is more dangerous to retreat than to stand your ground and defend yourself, plus the simple fact that sometimes it is physically impossible to retreat.

Quote:

3: desicion is in favor of chihawk, the use of a leathel weapon in the case of the cabby was not warented as his life was not threatened. under the law, he was in error. is this morraly right, no

Again, as noted above, it depends upon the state. Here in Texas, the cabby would be legally justified under the Penal Code. And again, he is still open to civil lawsuit.

Back to the CD booby trap thing, yes the manufacturer can be held civily liable, even with a warning label. All a plaintiff has to do is show an economic loss to file suit. Then it is up to the judge, and possibly a jury, to decide the case.

Personally, I think any idiot that puts something in their computer that had a warning label telling you not to do so is SOL.

OK, I'm done now. I'll put myself in the penalty box for 15 minutes for arguing with the ref, and an extra 5 for getting snooty at the end there

Ronin, heading for the box

On 2002-06-07 21:17, chihawk wrote:

Quote:

On 2002-06-07 12:22, Karagin wrote: Fine you are right as always and the rest of us are wrong. Nice talking with you on this.

"Us"? Whom might be the "us" you refer too?

Oh, that's right, I already accepted your surrender.

On 2002-06-10 12:59, Sir Henry wrote:
But The Corpse's Family Can.....
Sir HEnry

On 2002-06-10 16:53, Ronin wrote:
Also, in responce to the earlier comment about having your actions declared justified (by the police), we just got through discussing it in class today. Civil lawsuits are still possible, and in fact quite likely. And it is usually a judge or grand jury that determines if something was justified, at least officially (and as stated before, this will vary by jurisdiction, but that is how it is here and most other places that I know about).