If I was a defense attorney, my response to your logic would be 'So you are saying you are going to shoot the next person who walks past your house whether they are a threat or not? You did buy a gun to protect your family in case of a threat, didn't you Mr. RoyGBiv?'RoyGBiv wrote:VoiceofReason wrote:I think the next time they show up, the problem may be solved permanently.I don't want to argue semantics here, but if I was a juror and you came to me with the first statement posted to an internet forum by Mr. Reason, it would give serious weight to the argument that Mr. Reason planned to kill the dogs the next time he saw them, regardless of whether the dogs, at the time of the shooting, posed an immediate threat to anyone.Keith B wrote: I wouldn't call it premeditated, I would call it being prepared.
We here all know that it is very unlikely that Mr. Reason actually intended to infer this, but I could make an easy argument against him if he's gonna give me this as ammunition.
Let me take it one small step further... Let's replace "dog" with "annoying neighbor".
Just changing a noun.... The quote would then become...
"I think the next time that annoying neighbor shows up, the problem may be solved permanently."
If that neighbor showed up, and was subsequently shot and killed by Mr. Reason, what would a jury say about that statement?
Just my read... I understand many would disagree. No problem with that. Peace.
Apologies for the offtopic...
A threat is a threat. Your view apparently is if there are burglaries going on in the neighborhood and you go and buy a gun to protect yourself if you get burglarized and shoot someone, it is premeditated. I don't believe it is.
In this case, there are roaming dogs (or gangs, or whatever) threatening the safety of the neighborhood. He is just making sure he has a means to protect himself and his family (gun, baseball bat, car, pepper spray) in case they are attacked, the same way you are doing that by carrying a gun with your CHL.