[BigV]

Originally Posted by MaggieL

Nothing semantic about that. Just a matter of proper usage.

As for Mr. Lay...he got busted, he's been convicted, his appeals aren't exhausted. Things are looking pretty good for him ending up a convict.

If you're asking if I would have voted to convict were I on the jury (I was almost on a jury today, by the way...they turned out not to need me), I couldn't say, since I didn't spend umpty-leven days listening to the evidence.

BigV...what exactly was it that 9th was saying that you're interested in? I seem to recall that he was doing the "preemptive use of force" riff with Bruce. {L/l}ibertarians (especially the big-L variety) are very fond of the "non-initiation of violence" dealie...and it *is* a conforting shibboleth.

Personally I don't hew to it strictly; I beleve I have a right to use deadly force in self defence should I reasonably believe I (or someone else) is in danger of death or grevious bodily harm. I'm comfortable with the justification statue here in the Commonwealth and don't beleive it restricts my options unreasonably. My Gwennie has a theory that force used in self-defence does not meet a proper definition of the term "violence", but people's eyes usually glaze over when she tries to lay it down.

First off, Ken Lay died, and any appeals he has remaining must be plead in a much higher court. Based on this:

Since Lay died prior to exhausting his appeals, according to Roma Theus of the Defense Research Institute (an organization of defense attorneys), his conviction is considered abated pursuant to precedent in the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, the federal appellate court governing the district where Lay was indicted; however a formal filing must first be made. When abatement occurs the law would view it as though he had never been indicted, tried and convicted.

I wanted to know your opinion as to the "crime-ness" of what happened. I wasn't trying to trick you, only to expand on the focus on the word "crime". 9th started it in response to rkz, and your picked it up in my post.

This:

Personally I don't hew to it strictly; I beleve I have a right to use deadly force in self defence should I reasonably believe I (or someone else) is in danger of death or grevious bodily harm.

is pretty clear.

This

Gwennie has a theory that force used in self-defence does not meet a proper definition of the term "violence",

may be clearer still, and more useful. I don't know, and I'm all out of eye glaze. Honestly, I believe the same way. Reasonable people could easily differ as to what circumstances would constitute that belief. I have never been faced with those circumstances. I'm glad for my good fortune.

I'm believe in self defense, of course. And I'm not really interested in mincing words with you or anyone else as to the :rollseyes: difference between crime conviction intention violence etc etc. I was trying to understand you. And rkzenrage, too. Understand more thoroughly than just knowing the definitions of the words displayed. That takes more effort, and is almost always worth it.

The words are important, too; don't get me wrong. But understanding the words without understanding the meaning is like seeing and smelling a delicious meal you may not taste. It does not nourish or satisfy.