Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

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.
150 posted on 01/28/2003 7:59:44 AM PST by Shooter 2.5
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 144 | View Replies ]


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
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 150 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


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