YesJury instructions?
Bob
If you enjoy the forum please consider supporting it by signing up for a NES Membership The benefits pay for the membership many times over.
YesJury instructions?
Bob
MGL C. 278 S. 8A only gives you an "affirmative defense" (that your attorney has to convince the judge/jury not to convict) INSIDE your home . . . nowhere else and there is no other law to protect someone protecting themselves/family from attack anywhere else.
Freezer + Wood Chipper = Fertilizer
putrescine and cadaverine. And you can buy concentrated bottles of them from Sigma-Aldrich.
Here's the problem.(IANAL)
First, remember that the castle doctrine applies to duty-to-retreat, and nothing else. It does not remove any of the other elements required for a successful claim of self-defense. Massachusetts' castle doctrine also doesn't protect curtilage, but regardless, you cannot ever use deadly force merely in defense of property, even inside your home. Now, if a burglar breaks into your home while you're there and you shoot him, and you claim that you were in fear of your life when you did so, even in Massachusetts it's unlikely that any jury is going question that claim, provided that when the police respond you don't run your mouth and confess something to the contrary. But regardless, please do not shoot anyone for the sake of keeping your TV from getting stolen. I promise that no matter what else happens, your legal bills will exceed your homeowner's insurance deductible.
However, that doesn't mean you have to be completely helpless against thieves and vandals! So far this has been a discussion of deadly force. Massachusetts does permit "reasonable" force in defense of property. You're allowed to tackle a thief. You're allowed to wrest a can spray paint from a vandal's hand. And if after this confrontation begins, the perpetrator escalates to deadly force, so then can you.
That's the theory, at least. I still don't recommend doing this. A lot easier and safer to just let your insurance deal with this shit.
Dilute it just like alcohol. You buy the 95% and mix to desired effect. We could even hand out laced water bottles on a hot day. Just get away before people start opening them.56.00 for 100ml on the putrescine.
How many balloons would we need?
teasing - you have the right idea.
Stink balloons!
Watching them all barf on each other would be priceless.
But how would you defeat the ping Brewer mentioned earlier? That was a really good point.
He fell in...But how would you defeat the ping Brewer mentioned earlier? That was a really good point.
How do these compare to liquid ass?Turns out the two agents primarily responsible for that smell are putrescine and cadaverine. And you can buy concentrated bottles of them from Sigma-Aldric
Had to Google it — didn’t know such a thing exists. Only one way to find out.How do these compare to liquid ass?
First of all, consider 'natural law'. Everyone knows it isi not OK to kill somoene because they smashed your car. Natural law has been true since the beginning of civilization. Use your head (the good one) and ask yourself "Is my life or that of another in danger?" If yes, then you may be justified.
But more importantly - no matter what, you will spend tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars in Court and it will take everything else from you too. Job, friends, privacy, money. Some it ieven cost them their marriage. Is that worth the risk? Win or lose you will LOSE in this realm. Is it worth it?
.
If you’re worrying about the legal fees, then your life isn’t in danger. This shouldn’t even be a question. If your life is in true danger and you have no way out, you will do what you have to do regardless of the aftermath. Yes MA law sucks, but a lot of people analyze it way too much. There are many cases of cut and dry self defense in Massachusetts where the victim was not put through the ringer in court. I’m not saying I agree with the MA defense law, but I’d think the cost of your life would out weigh legal fees.
Bringing this to the current climate, if there’s a mob outside your house lighting it on fire while your family is inside- that is easily justified. You have no way out, and are trapped with your life in danger. Not to mention the police are not coming if there’s an actual riot which gives your case even more teeth. Going further, say you do brandish your gun. Who’s calling the police? The rioters? I don’t think so.
Unless your a cop, don’t do a cops work. It’s your job to protect your life and your families at any cost. No one else’s, and if your considering not defending your life because it will cost you a lot of money then either your life isn’t in danger or you shouldn’t be using a firearm for defensive purposes. Either way timid-ness will only make your situation worse in this state.
That's very rational. But the reality is that some private lawyers and public "servants" will try to put you away for even a perfectly righteous kill ... Now at a random moment in the next thirty years, let's give you a three-second notice, increase your heart rate to 180, surge adrenaline through your veins, shut down your prefrontal cortex as you enter fight/flight/freeze, and ask you to be so rational again.
You say the proof of a true life-threatening situation is that someone can't possibly be thinking about the ensuing legal fight. I disagree. Using lethal force would be one of the heaviest yet most rushed decisions of my life. Making the wrong call or hitting the wrong person could lead to me watching my kids grow up from prison. Even if do my part perfectly, there are too many ugly examples of justice delayed or denied for me to feel confident. These concerns are deeply ingrained, not just rationally but emotionally, and tied to every single 3.5-pound trigger pull. Or as one instructor told me, "There's a lawyer attached to every bullet."I don’t really see how this changes anything. For the first part, are you saying you’d rather die than go to jail? If so that’s your choice, but I’d make a different one. If I’m faced with death or jail ill pick jail all day long.
Second I’m being rational in explaining how a person would handle a situation without using thought. I never claimed someone would be rational in the moment. You actually proved my point in the second half of your post. You’re heart rate is up, you’re in flight or fight, you pick to fight and you do what you have to do. You’re not thinking about legal fees or jail in that three seconds. You challenge me to be “that rational” in an intense moment (even though I never claimed but you argue you’d have time to be rational enough to weigh the pros and cons of defending yourself.
“So I can't blame anyone who hesitates in the OODA loop because they know they're prepared to win a physical fight but doubt they can afford to win the ensuing legal fight”
If you’re thinking about that and are experiencing hesitation, are you not being rational about your situation?
I agree with your last point. You do not have time to be rational which is why you’d never stop and think about anything but your immediate situation. You do what you have to do end of story regardless of consequence. I’m confused where you stand on this.
You say the proof of a true life-threatening situation is that someone can't possibly be thinking about the ensuing legal fight. I disagree. Using lethal force would be one of the heaviest yet most rushed decisions of my life. Making the wrong call or hitting the wrong person could lead to me watching my kids grow up from prison. Even if do my part perfectly, there are too many ugly examples of justice delayed or denied for me to feel confident. These concerns are deeply ingrained, not just rationally but emotionally, and tied to every single 3.5-pound trigger pull. Or as one instructor told me, "There's a lawyer attached to every bullet."
Decision-making capacity is still present in high stress. After all, fight/flight/freeze is a decision, just a primarily emotional rather than a rational one. And professionals use fear inoculation in training so they can maintain more rational capacity during a fight. But I don't have that training. So the weight of those additional legal fears could cause one to hesitate in a critical moment. I try to anticipate and minimize their effect by having the reassurance of great carry insurance and a hefty emergency fund. Others have said they manage risk by resolving not to use lethal force for a stranger, only for themselves and loved ones. That resolution does simplify things but regret is another risk with its own lasting effects.
Everyone must draw these lines for themselves. I can respect you concluding differently than I do.
(IANAL)
First, remember that the castle doctrine applies to duty-to-retreat, and nothing else. It does not remove any of the other elements required for a successful claim of self-defense. Massachusetts' castle doctrine also doesn't protect curtilage, but regardless, you cannot ever use deadly force merely in defense of property, even inside your home. Now, if a burglar breaks into your home while you're there and you shoot him, and you claim that you were in fear of your life when you did so, even in Massachusetts it's unlikely that any jury is going question that claim, provided that when the police respond you don't run your mouth and confess something to the contrary. But regardless, please do not shoot anyone for the sake of keeping your TV from getting stolen. I promise that no matter what else happens, your legal bills will exceed your homeowner's insurance deductible.
However, that doesn't mean you have to be completely helpless against thieves and vandals! So far this has been a discussion of deadly force. Massachusetts does permit "reasonable" force in defense of property. You're allowed to tackle a thief. You're allowed to wrest a can spray paint from a vandal's hand. And if after this confrontation begins, the perpetrator escalates to deadly force, so then can you.
That's the theory, at least. I still don't recommend doing this. A lot easier and safer to just let your insurance deal with this shit.
Lol most of us realize this is the reality in most of the US. That still doesn't make it right.First of all, consider 'natural law'. Everyone knows it isi not OK to kill somoene because they smashed your car. Natural law has been true since the beginning of civilization. Use your head (the good one) and ask yourself "Is my life or that of another in danger?" If yes, then you may be justified.
But more importantly - no matter what, you will spend tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars in Court and it will take everything else from you too. Job, friends, privacy, money. Some it ieven cost them their marriage. Is that worth the risk? Win or lose you will LOSE in this realm. Is it worth it?
.
How do these compare to liquid ass?
Shoot.
Shovel.
Shut up.
You may (may) have felt you were still smelling itThe most memorable case had been discovered around a week later. ... the smell was the single most shocking and unforgettable brand of horror I've ever experienced. ... The ME told me, "Don't you dare get in your car after this. Toss those scrubs and take a long shower before going home or you'll smell it in your car for weeks." I did so but still felt it was burned into my nose for the next day.