Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

To: rdb3; Khepera; elwoodp; MAKnight; condolinda; mafree; Trueblackman; FRlurker; Teacher317; ...
I had this very conversation with my 'on the fence' brother in Chicago more than a month ago.

He's heard from more than one person that if there is a close election (not unlike four years ago) and if we win, that there will be riots in the streets.

We're both hopeful that this won't be the case, but I had to conceed that many of the KoolAid drinkers are unbalanced enough to take to the streets.

Forewarned is forearmed, though.

 

Double-barrelled Mega-PING! to both lists! If you want on, FReepmail me!

12 posted on 09/30/2004 7:03:24 AM PDT by mhking
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]


To: mhking

Your brother has had conversations about this with these morons and is still "on the fence"?!

Prairie


14 posted on 09/30/2004 7:09:22 AM PDT by prairiebreeze (The Democrat Party has become a national embarrassment!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies ]

To: mhking
It's scary that the element of society that would riot over an election has vote--after vote--after vote. Only then when they are paid to vote.

Most are only interested in their next government check.

22 posted on 09/30/2004 7:18:45 AM PDT by lonestar (Me, too!--Weinie)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies ]

To: mhking

Let them riot all they want.

Commanding an army means never having to say you are sorry.


24 posted on 09/30/2004 7:22:39 AM PDT by MindBender26 (Al Queda, Taliban, Dan Rather, Jessie Jackson, Osama Bin Laden ..... Same ilk, different uniforms.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies ]

To: mhking

ahem..... god bless texas..
we can kill you to protect ourselves, kill you to protect others, kill you to protect our property, and kill you to protect others property. We can kill you if you want to rob us, we can kill you if you want to rob someone else, we can kill you if you want to rape us, we can kill you if you want to rape someone else.

Lets see them come riot down my street.. I'll have to watch for cross fire from the neighbors.



§ 9.41. PROTECTION OF ONE'S OWN PROPERTY. (a) A person
in lawful possession of land or tangible, movable property is
justified in using force against another when and to the degree the
actor reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to
prevent or terminate the other's trespass on the land or unlawful
interference with the property.
(b) A person unlawfully dispossessed of land or tangible,
movable property by another is justified in using force against the
other when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the force
is immediately necessary to reenter the land or recover the
property if the actor uses the force immediately or in fresh pursuit
after the dispossession and:
(1) the actor reasonably believes the other had no
claim of right when he dispossessed the actor; or
(2) the other accomplished the dispossession by using
force, threat, or fraud against the actor.

Acts 1973, 63rd Leg., p. 883, ch. 399, § 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1974.
Amended by Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 900, § 1.01, eff. Sept. 1,
1994.
§ 9.04. THREATS AS JUSTIFIABLE FORCE. The threat of
force is justified when the use of force is justified by this
chapter. For purposes of this section, a threat to cause death or
serious bodily injury by the production of a weapon or otherwise, as
long as the actor's purpose is limited to creating an apprehension
that he will use deadly force if necessary, does not constitute the
use of deadly force.

Acts 1973, 63rd Leg., p. 883, ch. 399, § 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1974.
Amended by Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 900, § 1.01, eff. Sept. 1,
1994.
§ 9.32. DEADLY FORCE IN DEFENSE OF PERSON. (a) A
person is justified in using deadly force against another:
(1) if he would be justified in using force against the
other under Section 9.31;
(2) if a reasonable person in the actor's situation
would not have retreated; and
(3) when and to the degree he reasonably believes the
deadly force is immediately necessary:
(A) to protect himself against the other's use or
attempted use of unlawful deadly force; or
(B) to prevent the other's imminent commission of
aggravated kidnapping, murder, sexual assault, aggravated sexual
assault, robbery, or aggravated robbery.
(b) The requirement imposed by Subsection (a)(2) does not
apply to an actor who uses force against a person who is at the time
of the use of force committing an offense of unlawful entry in the
habitation of the actor.

§ 9.33. DEFENSE OF THIRD PERSON. A person is justified
in using force or deadly force against another to protect a third
person if:
(1) under the circumstances as the actor reasonably
believes them to be, the actor would be justified under Section 9.31
or 9.32 in using force or deadly force to protect himself against
the unlawful force or unlawful deadly force he reasonably believes
to be threatening the third person he seeks to protect; and
(2) the actor reasonably believes that his
intervention is immediately necessary to protect the third person.

Acts 1973, 63rd Leg., p. 883, ch. 399, § 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1974.
Amended by Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 900, § 1.01, eff. Sept. 1,
1994.
§ 9.43. PROTECTION OF THIRD PERSON'S PROPERTY. A person
is justified in using force or deadly force against another to
protect land or tangible, movable property of a third person if,
under the circumstances as he reasonably believes them to be, the
actor would be justified under Section 9.41 or 9.42 in using force
or deadly force to protect his own land or property and:
(1) the actor reasonably believes the unlawful
interference constitutes attempted or consummated theft of or
criminal mischief to the tangible, movable property; or
(2) the actor reasonably believes that:
(A) the third person has requested his protection
of the land or property;
(B) he has a legal duty to protect the third
person's land or property; or
(C) the third person whose land or property he
uses force or deadly force to protect is the actor's spouse, parent,
or child, resides with the actor, or is under the actor's care.

Acts 1973, 63rd Leg., p. 883, ch. 399, § 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1974.
Amended by Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 900, § 1.01, eff. Sept. 1,
1994.


42 posted on 09/30/2004 9:18:49 AM PDT by melkor (God bless section 9 of the Texas penal code.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson