sologdin Posted January 15, 2016 Share Posted January 15, 2016 one could argue that. i wouldn't argue that, without more. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Chatywin et al. Posted January 15, 2016 Share Posted January 15, 2016 All you'd have to say is you had a reasonable fear that the PT might attack your spouse. The individual has already displayed illegal activity, so it's reasonable to fear they'd continue to break the law. And there have been a number of highly covered cases as of late where "reasonable fear" was enough to justify someone's actions.But hey, that's why you're a lawyer and all I've done is take the LSAT. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sologdin Posted January 15, 2016 Share Posted January 15, 2016 "reasonable fear" is the short way of saying that one hasa ) actual subjective fear, and b ) this actual subjective fear is objectively reasonable.the witness can testify as to the existence of fear, and the trier of fact can believe that testimony or not. the witness normally can't say 'hey and my fear was reasonable.' (as an aside, i wouldn't put that testimony on; if witness was capable of rationally evaluating the type of fear in the moment, just how bona fide is the fear?) trier of fact must infer from circumstances whether the fear was reasonable. my bet is that it will, and always should be, manifestly unreasonable to shoot someone merely because they are looking in a window. that authorizes casual assassination of someone on the sidewalk whom i happen to notice looking toward me through my open bedroom window. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ser Scot A Ellison Posted January 15, 2016 Author Share Posted January 15, 2016 Interesting topic Scot.Question for the lawyers,If you see a peeping tom outside your bedroom window who is on your property, is it legal or illegal to shoot at them?It should be illegal, without the PT putting you in threat of physical injury. A drone is not a person. It is next to impossible to know who is operating a drone over your property and as such I think it should be treated differently than a person who is trespassing for voyueristic purposes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maithanet Posted January 15, 2016 Share Posted January 15, 2016 It should be illegal, without the PT putting you in threat of physical injury. A drone is not a person. It is next to impossible to know who is operating a drone over your property and as such I think it should be treated differently than a person who is trespassing for voyueristic purposes.If a person were in your yard for no clear reason, a rational person would ask them (perhaps forcefully) what they are doing there. You cannot do that with a drone. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Chatywin et al. Posted January 15, 2016 Share Posted January 15, 2016 It should be illegal, without the PT putting you in threat of physical injury. A drone is not a person. It is next to impossible to know who is operating a drone over your property and as such I think it should be treated differently than a person who is trespassing for voyueristic purposes.I get that. I was asking because if you could shoot a PT on your property then the only questions here would be firearm discharge regulations and property rights. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ser Scot A Ellison Posted January 15, 2016 Author Share Posted January 15, 2016 Tywin,That's why I like a slingshot and a rock. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Chatywin et al. Posted January 15, 2016 Share Posted January 15, 2016 There you go again Master of Questions, showing us your inner menace. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lany Freelove Cassandra Posted January 15, 2016 Share Posted January 15, 2016 I think a hunting net to capture the drone wouldn't cause too much damage Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IheartIheartTesla Posted January 15, 2016 Share Posted January 15, 2016 The original dronemaster, Ben Franklin, flew a electromagnetized kite over his neighbor's property, and it was perfectly legal by virtue of him being one of the fathers of the Constitution, thrice blessed be its name, amen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ser Scot A Ellison Posted January 15, 2016 Author Share Posted January 15, 2016 The original dronemaster, Ben Franklin, flew a electromagnetized kite over his neighbor's property, and it was perfectly legal by virtue of him being one of the fathers of the Constitution, thrice blessed be its name, amen.IHT,The Constitution is not now and has never been "holy". Thinking it matters as written does not mean it is being "deified". It means when you call a document the "supreme law of the land" that means what the document says matters.I, for one, would love to see a Constitutional convention called and the existing document reworked or even a new one adopted from scratch. But until that is done the Constitution, as written, has the power it has. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Astromech Posted January 15, 2016 Share Posted January 15, 2016 The original dronemaster, Ben Franklin, flew a electromagnetized kite over his neighbor's property, and it was perfectly legal by virtue of him being one of the fathers of the Constitution, thrice blessed be its name, amen.IHT,The Constitution is not now and has never been "holy". Thinking it matters as written does not mean it is being "deified". It means when you call a document the "supreme law of the land" that means what the document says matters.I, for one, would love to see a Constitutional convention called and the existing document reworked or even a new one adopted from scratch. But until that is done the Constitution, as written, has the power it has.Good thing the Constitution prohibits ex post facto laws that could have been his undoing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Chatywin et al. Posted January 15, 2016 Share Posted January 15, 2016 Good thing the Constitution prohibits ex post facto laws that could have been his undoing.If only the constitution prohibited ex post facto driod abilities..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Astromech Posted January 15, 2016 Share Posted January 15, 2016 If only the constitution prohibited ex post facto driod abilities.....That was harsh Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lily Valley Posted January 15, 2016 Share Posted January 15, 2016 Solo, have you ever heard of a camera that wasn't used for one? Google toilet cams, perhaps. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry of the Lawn Posted January 16, 2016 Share Posted January 16, 2016 Google makes toilet cams now? We are done for! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
all swedes are racist Posted January 16, 2016 Share Posted January 16, 2016 Google makes toilet cams now? We are done for!yeah, much less uh, alluring than Scots pagan orgy feed Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Theda Baratheon Posted January 16, 2016 Share Posted January 16, 2016 when i grow up i wanna be a drone slayer Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lily Valley Posted January 17, 2016 Share Posted January 17, 2016 Google makes toilet cams now? We are done for!Yes, they're lovely. I have yours bookmarked as my favorite. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Commodore Posted January 18, 2016 Share Posted January 18, 2016 what's the legal recourse against an autonomous drone?we presume these things will always have readily identifiable "owners" to hold accountable Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.