Copying Hobby VHS tapes to DVD legalities

This is the defination in many states however if the home owner used deadly force it's possible they could find themselves in civil court or even criminal court if the invader was not armed!

Criminal court is very unlikely. The police and DA will do their due diligence to make sure some psychopath didn't invite someone to his home, shoot him, and then claim the guy broke in. But DA's aren't like to touch a case of a home invader being shot for the simple reason that there will be twelve jurors sitting there putting themselves in the shooter's shoes.

The common law right to self-defense also doesn't apply solely if you think your life is in danger. It also applies to the fear of "grievous bodily harm" which, of course, includes rape. There is no requirement for the assailant to have a weapon either. It is reasonable to feel a threat of death or grievous boldly harm simply because you are physically outmatched (i.e. more than one, unarmed assailant, or one really big one.)

It usually comes down to something very simple. If it is at all clear that the assailant has the ability to retreat, and he doesn't, you can kill him with a clear conscience.

Speak for you own state. In California, there's a 52% chance you're an idiot in favor of theocracy.

Iowa comes to mind, where several years ago a man was charged with a felony for defending his home when it was determined that he could have left through another door as the burglar entered.

Mass. allows use of a fire arm to defend one's person if they feel their life is threatened; but not to protect property.

case of a home invader being shot for the simple reason that there will be twelve jurors sitting there putting themselves in the shooter's shoes.< One can never trust their future to DAs. Take the case of the guy charged with the ownership of an automatic weapon. The weapon was broken (documented from manufacture) and someone else was using it. I always keep in mind that a DAs only function is to advance themselves to judge or higher.

Uh, California *is* my State.

Ah yes; the cry of the wounded idealogue: whenever you lose an election, claim that anyone who opposed your goals is an idiot.

And as evidence that there are idiots out there on both extremes, I saw my first "Impeach Obama" bumper sticker today, which means the

Still, why let reality get in the way of a good rant?

~Pete

Great. And when one of you shoots at someone, and misses, and gets someone else, maybe in your neighbor's house, then you have no trouble being up for manslaughter and serving time, right?

mark

As long as you have no problem being up for manslaughter after running a stop sign. Or do you want to ban cars also?

How about requiring annual training, and licensing for guns?

Oh, and I'm so glad you're for supplying guns to gangs.

mark

They really are. The ayatollahs of the NRA keep insisting that the Tiahrt Amendment be appended to BATF funding, preventing use of the Federal database for finding which gun dealers are making hundreds (if not more) sales to straw buyers, in Virginia for instance, who then import them to New York and see that the dope dealers and pimps are free to exercize their

Annual? Do you take a driver's test every year?

But for carrying in public, sure, no problem. No need for a license for home use, just as you don't need a license to drive on private property.

I see. Well I'm not at all happy that you rape children.

If you're going to make things up, think big.

It would be a hell of a lot easier to do that effectively if the cold dead fingers crown would tell the NRA ayatollahs to stop demanding the Tiahrt Amendment limit hte use of federal firearms databases so the corrupt dealers and manufacturers could be tracked down.

A number of states have enacted so-called "Castle Doctrine" legislation to protect homeowners from prosecution or civil suits from the dead felons relatives. The basis is "A man's home is his castle" ideal and an inherent right to defend himself and his belongings from criminals, the life of the criminal being less valuable than the TV set he is trying to steal. Wikipedia has a page on Castle Doctrine, but since it is not regarded very highly here's another one followed by an excerpt:

Here is an update of the above site:

Here is another site to back up what you found:

Zero is by definition less than any positive quantity.

The use of deadly force should only be permitted if your or someone else's life is in immediate mortal peril.

So, you don't shoot someone breaking into your home as you can elect to leave so that you are not in immediate peril and you do not shoot at a fleeing felon unless you or someone else is in immediate peril. So you should never use a gun, nor even the infamous "pit manoeuvre" (Banned by the more civilised countries) to stop a fleeing felon as that puts the policeman into the position of judge, jury and executioner as well as putting innocent civilians at risk. If they're breaking into your house, act like you would in a fire and get out and call the police and the police involved in a chase, should back off and follow at a safe distance.

"Cowboy law", as practised in certain countries, is fortunately not permitted in the more civilised parts of the world.

-- Cheers Roger T. See the GER at: -

If they are breaking into your house, eradicate them and do the world a favour.

Sure, for a given value of "more civilised"; in this case meaning "crushed into unquestioning obediance by the same government that told us it was being done for own own good."

Thankfully, we in the US still largely cling to the outdated notion that *we* should run the government rather than the other way around.

Cheers,

~Pete

And naturally we can instantly tell that you're not trying to spin anything in your direction by the way you use completely unloaded phrases such as "cold dead fingers crown" (sic), "NRA ayatollahs" (sic), and "corrupt dealers and manufacturers" (sick).

It's sensible, centrist positions such as this that convince responsible gun owners that the left wing fruit-loops really *are* out to totally disarm them, and cause those gun owners to resist *any* move towards gun control as being just one more step on the road to complete confiscation.

So -in a very real sense- you're shooting yourself in the foot.

~Pete