To: FreedomPoster; Abundy
You're correct. Nothing seems to take. When you make a point, the conversation goes back to spring guns.
If the prosecutor had a case, the media would have been more than happy to explain why.
By the way, the prosecutor had a press release and she used the "For the children" defense. I didn't waste my time to find out her party affiliation.
To: Shooter 2.5
You're correct. Nothing seems to take.And apparently -- I'm resigned to say you simply can't read, based on your last response. The discussion -- which I BOLDED for you, for God's sake, so you could easily find it! --discusses the GENERAL principle of defense of property. It OCCURS, incidentally, in a case involving spring guns -- BECAUSE the facts provide a clear case for the GENERAL principle -- although it's apparently over your head.
151 posted on
01/28/2003 9:05:10 AM PST by
WL-law
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson