OK, let’s play that game.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...
Read my original post again. Nowhere in that post did I say I was going to shoot those dogs. I speculated that someone might shoot them. My position would be “I didn’t shoot them and I didn’t see who did”. I would imagine you would not find anyone in our neighborhood that saw anything regardless of who did what. As a matter of fact, I wouldn’t even call to report anything if someone did take care of the problem.
Equating the shooting of a dog that shredded two pet cats and threatened my neighbors wife with an annoying neighbor just doesn’t get it. Any lawyer that tried to draw that analogy to a jury should probably seriously consider a career change.