Copying Hobby VHS tapes to DVD legalities

On Sat, 22 Nov 2008 06:46:55 -0800, Steve Caple


At one time, I believe Massachusetts required one to retreat if at all possible. I assume that would infer leave one's home. Have no idea of current law.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
snipped-for-privacy@hectic.org wrote:
[Snip]

I believe current law allows you to defend yourself if you feel your life is threatened. Definitely not open season on housebreakers.
--
Bill Kaiser
snipped-for-privacy@mtholyoke.edu
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

is threatened.<
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!
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

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.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

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.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Ya'know, Steve, it's statements like that which convince people that there are nuts on both sides of the gun argument.
Maybe you could try being at least somewhat rational instead of just tossing out random straw man arguments?
~Pete
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Sat, 22 Nov 2008 11:22:30 -0800 (PST), Twibil wrote:

What goes around, comes around. Let me know when you have rational reasons for homeowners having assault rifles. If a 12 gauge pump and a 9mm aren't enough for you, sounds like you're verging on Hanna Montana Militia Syndrome.
--
Steve

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Ah. They act nutty so you should too?
Let's think about the logic implicit in that for a while, shall we?

Let us *all* know when someone in authority states that you're qualified to decide that sort of thing for anyone but yourself.
(There's this funny concept we call "freedom", the original idea of which was that we all got to make our own decisions in life -and stand responsible for the results of those decisions. Most of us seem to think this 'freedom" thing is a good idea...)
~Pete
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Sat, 22 Nov 2008 14:05:45 -0800 (PST), Twibil wrote:

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

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

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 *right-wing* fruitcakes have forgotten that he's not even the President yet, and so has had no chance to commit any "high crimes and misdemeanors" while in office.
Still, why let reality get in the way of a good rant?
~Pete
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Massachusett's, up until thirty years ago, or so, if I remember correctly.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

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.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Ronnie wrote:

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: http://www.cga.ct.gov/2007/rpt/2007-R-0052.htm

--

Rick Jones
Remove the Extra Dot to e-mail me
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Here is an update of the above site:
http://www.cga.ct.gov/2008/rpt/2008-R-0320.htm
Here is another site to back up what you found:
http://tekel.wordpress.com/2007/10/09/the-castle-doctrine-a-state-by-state-summary /
More and more are "Castle Doctrine" bills are being introduced.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Rick Jones wrote:

Zero is by definition less than any positive quantity.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

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: - http://www.islandnet.com/~rogertra /
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Roger T. wrote:

If they are breaking into your house, eradicate them and do the world a favour.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

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
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Thu, 27 Nov 2008 16:38:41 -0800 (PST), Twibil wrote:

Oh? I presume that the "we" you mention does not include those who suported Bush and Cheney and their cohort of imperial presidency - oh, pardon me, "unitary executive" - theorists, or the so-called "PATRIOT" act that would have our founding fathers rising up in revolt. It seems a large part of the US was perfectly happy to let the privileged few - the REAL elitists - run the country; and run it they did, right into the ground.
--
Steve

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Give it a rest, Steve.
All you're doing with your spin is convincing your readers that the far left has just as many mindless idealogues as the far right ever had. And that those two extremes have more in common with each other than they have with centrists such as myself.
Both wings are firmly convinced that *they* have all the answers, and that they are justified in enforcing their beliefs on the unwilling middle "for the good of all".
But the fact is, the rabid left wing anti-gun nuts are no more attractive to centrists than the Bush team's attempts to enforce it's own version of Sharia Law on the world in general.
~Pete
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Polytechforum.com is a website by engineers for engineers. It is not affiliated with any of manufacturers or vendors discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.