VoiceofReason wrote:I think the next time they show up, the problem may be solved permanently.
Keith B wrote: I wouldn't call it premeditated, I would call it being prepared.
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.
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...
