jury duty in California

[Jonathan de Boyne Pollard]

>>> Not in California.
>
> The rules about what cna and cant be done vary a lot. [...]

I had a quick look at the California Penal Code. There's nothing about
jurors being permitted to ask questions. There's a lot about
admonishing them, though. Jurors can get admonished several times a day
under California law.

[richard]

On Wed, 28 Sep 2011 18:06:21 +0100, Jonathan de Boyne Pollard wrote:

>>>> Not in California.
>>
>> The rules about what cna and cant be done vary a lot. [...]
>
> I had a quick look at the California Penal Code. There's nothing about
> jurors being permitted to ask questions. There's a lot about
> admonishing them, though. Jurors can get admonished several times a day
> under California law.

You didn't do enough research.
Unless there is a law specifying denial to ask, then the jurors may ask.
In many courts, including california, the juror may ask a question, by
writing down and passing it to the judge. The judge will then determine if
the question is to be answered or not.

[Bill Graham]

Jonathan de Boyne Pollard wrote:
>>>> Not in California.
>>
>> The rules about what cna and cant be done vary a lot. [...]
>
> I had a quick look at the California Penal Code. There's nothing
> about jurors being permitted to ask questions. There's a lot about
> admonishing them, though. Jurors can get admonished several times a
> day under California law.

They frequently call in the judge to ask him a question after they start
deliberations, but they are not supposed to interrupt the trial with
questions. I don't know if there is any law aginnst it, however. I suppose
it would be up to the judge to decide whether any given question was
appropriate or not.

[Evan Kirshenbaum]

Jonathan de Boyne Pollard <J.deBoynePollard-***@NTLWorld.COM>
writes:

>>>> Not in California.
>>
>> The rules about what cna and cant be done vary a lot. [...]
>
> I had a quick look at the California Penal Code. There's nothing
> about jurors being permitted to ask questions. There's a lot about
> admonishing them, though. Jurors can get admonished several times a
> day under California law.

They can ask questions once they've started to deliberate:

1138. After the jury have retired for deliberation, if there be
any disagreement between them as to the testimony, or if they
desire to be informed on any point of law arising in the case,
they must require the officer to conduct them into court. Upon
being brought into court, the information required must be given
in the presence of, or after notice to, the prosecuting attorney,
and the defendant or his counsel, or after they have been called.

As for notes,

1137. Upon retiring for deliberation, the jury may take with them
all papers (except depositions) which have been received as
evidence in the cause, or copies of such public records or private
documents given in evidence as ought not, in the opinion of the
court, to be taken from the person having them in possession. They
may also take with them the written instructions given, and notes
of the testimony or other proceedings on the trial, taken by
themselves or any of them, but none taken by any other person. The
court shall provide for the custody and safekeeping of such items.

so yes, they can take written notes and can bring in evidentiary
papers, but not depositions or transcripts of testimony. For those,
they have to rely on their notes and memory or go back into court and
ask that the testimony be read to them again.

--
Evan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------
Still with HP Labs |If the human brain were so simple
SF Bay Area (1982-) |That we could understand it,
Chicago (1964-1982) |We would be so simple
|That we couldn't.
***@gmail.com

http://www.kirshenbaum.net/

[Peter Brooks]

On Sep 28, 11:20 pm, Evan Kirshenbaum <***@gmail.com>
wrote:
> Jonathan de Boyne Pollard <J.deBoynePollard-***@NTLWorld.COM>
> writes:
>
> >>>> Not in California.
>
> >> The rules about what cna and cant be done vary a lot. [...]
>
> > I had a quick look at the California Penal Code.  There's nothing
> > about jurors being permitted to ask questions.  There's a lot about
> > admonishing them, though.  Jurors can get admonished several times a
> > day under California law.
>
> They can ask questions once they've started to deliberate:
>
>     1138.  After the jury have retired for deliberation, if there be
>     any disagreement between them as to the testimony, or if they
>     desire to be informed on any point of law arising in the case,
>     they must require the officer to conduct them into court. Upon
>     being brought into court, the information required must be given
>     in the presence of, or after notice to, the prosecuting attorney,
>     and the defendant or his counsel, or after they have been called.
>
> As for notes,
>
>     1137.  Upon retiring for deliberation, the jury may take with them
>     all papers (except depositions) which have been received as
>     evidence in the cause, or copies of such public records or private
>     documents given in evidence as ought not, in the opinion of the
>     court, to be taken from the person having them in possession. They
>     may also take with them the written instructions given, and notes
>     of the testimony or other proceedings on the trial, taken by
>     themselves or any of them, but none taken by any other person. The
>     court shall provide for the custody and safekeeping of such items.
>
> so yes, they can take written notes and can bring in evidentiary
> papers, but not depositions or transcripts of testimony.  For those,
> they have to rely on their notes and memory or go back into court and
> ask that the testimony be read to them again.
>
Indeed they can, and those are specifically provided for.

However, that which is not prohibited is legal.

So they can also ask during the trial, if they wish, any question of a
witness - they, as protocol, have to, like anybody else, go through
the judge, but they can do it.

[Evan Kirshenbaum]

Peter Brooks <***@gmail.com> writes:

> On Sep 28, 11:20 pm, Evan Kirshenbaum <***@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>> Jonathan de Boyne Pollard <J.deBoynePollard-***@NTLWorld.COM>
>> writes:
>>
>> >>>> Not in California.
>>
>> >> The rules about what cna and cant be done vary a lot. [...]
>>
>> > I had a quick look at the California Penal Code.  There's nothing
>> > about jurors being permitted to ask questions.  There's a lot about
>> > admonishing them, though.  Jurors can get admonished several times a
>> > day under California law.
>>
>> They can ask questions once they've started to deliberate:
>>
>>     1138.  After the jury have retired for deliberation, if there be
>>     any disagreement between them as to the testimony, or if they
>>     desire to be informed on any point of law arising in the case,
>>     they must require the officer to conduct them into court. Upon
>>     being brought into court, the information required must be given
>>     in the presence of, or after notice to, the prosecuting attorney,
>>     and the defendant or his counsel, or after they have been called.
>>
>> As for notes,
>>
>>     1137.  Upon retiring for deliberation, the jury may take with them
>>     all papers (except depositions) which have been received as
>>     evidence in the cause, or copies of such public records or private
>>     documents given in evidence as ought not, in the opinion of the
>>     court, to be taken from the person having them in possession. They
>>     may also take with them the written instructions given, and notes
>>     of the testimony or other proceedings on the trial, taken by
>>     themselves or any of them, but none taken by any other person. The
>>     court shall provide for the custody and safekeeping of such items.
>>
>> so yes, they can take written notes and can bring in evidentiary
>> papers, but not depositions or transcripts of testimony.  For those,
>> they have to rely on their notes and memory or go back into court and
>> ask that the testimony be read to them again.
>>
> Indeed they can, and those are specifically provided for.
>
> However, that which is not prohibited is legal.

True, but what is prohibited is probably largely governed by

1122. (a) After the jury has been sworn and before the people's
opening address, the court shall instruct the jury generally
concerning its basic functions, duties, and conduct.

> So they can also ask during the trial, if they wish, any question of a
> witness - they, as protocol, have to, like anybody else, go through
> the judge, but they can do it.

If the judge says they can. I suspect that they typically have as
much right to ask questions of a witness as the baliff, court
reporter, spectators, or newspaper reporters do. In the US, at least.

--
Evan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------
Still with HP Labs |It's like grasping the difference
SF Bay Area (1982-) |between what one usually considers
Chicago (1964-1982) |a 'difficult' problem, and what
|*is* a difficult problem. The day
***@gmail.com |one understands *why* counting all
|the molecules in the Universe isn't
http://www.kirshenbaum.net/ |difficult...there's the leap.
| Tina Marie Holmboe

[Seth]

In article <***@gmail.com>,
Evan Kirshenbaum <***@gmail.com> wrote:
>Peter Brooks <***@gmail.com> writes:

>> So they can also ask during the trial, if they wish, any question of a
>> witness - they, as protocol, have to, like anybody else, go through
>> the judge, but they can do it.
>
>If the judge says they can. I suspect that they typically have as
>much right to ask questions of a witness as the baliff, court
>reporter, spectators, or newspaper reporters do. In the US, at least.

Your suspicion is incorrect. The jurors (during the trial) have less
right than the public at large to do such things.

In one case I was on the jury panel (not the trial jury) for, we were
told that we were not to visit a particular building (which featured
in the case); anything we should know about it (e.g. the layout of
stores within it) would be provided by evidence at the trial. The
general public could visit that building whenever it wished.

Seth

[Peter Brooks]

On Sep 30, 5:35 am, ***@panix.com (Seth) wrote:
> In article <***@gmail.com>,
> Evan Kirshenbaum  <***@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >Peter Brooks <***@gmail.com> writes:
> >> So they can also ask during the trial, if they wish, any question of a
> >> witness - they, as protocol, have to, like anybody else, go through
> >> the judge, but they can do it.
>
> >If the judge says they can.  I suspect that they typically have as
> >much right to ask questions of a witness as the baliff, court
> >reporter, spectators, or newspaper reporters do.  In the US, at least.
>
> Your suspicion is incorrect.  The jurors (during the trial) have less
> right than the public at large to do such things.
>
> In one case I was on the jury panel (not the trial jury) for, we were
> told that we were not to visit a particular building (which featured
> in the case); anything we should know about it (e.g. the layout of
> stores within it) would be provided by evidence at the trial.  The
> general public could visit that building whenever it wished.
>
It is because of that ( and, or course, because it is the jury who
have the duty to decide, not the judge ) that questions to witnesses
are allowed. The court likes to think that they make the decisions,
they test the evidence and they understand it all, with the jury
simply an annoying and slightly unpredictable necessary evil. In fact
it's the jury that should be insisting on better evidence testing
because it is only what they see and hear in court that they can
properly use to make a decision - so, if, for example, an examining
lawyer cuts off a witness before the testimony is complete and the
judge doesn't intervene to get the full story, it's the jury that
should insist on hearing what the examining lawyer wanted to keep from
them.

[Snidely]

Peter Brooks <***@gmail.com> scribbled something like ...

> On Sep 30, 5:35 am, ***@panix.com (Seth) wrote:
>> In article <***@gmail.com>,
>> Evan Kirshenbaum  <***@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >Peter Brooks <***@gmail.com> writes:
>> >> So they can also ask during the trial, if they wish, any question
>> >> of a witness - they, as protocol, have to, like anybody else, go
>> >> through the judge, but they can do it.
>>
>> >If the judge says they can.  I suspect that they typically have as
>> >much right to ask questions of a witness as the baliff, court
>> >reporter, spectators, or newspaper reporters do.  In the US, at
>> >least.
>>
>> Your suspicion is incorrect.  The jurors (during the trial) have less
>> right than the public at large to do such things.
>>
>> In one case I was on the jury panel (not the trial jury) for, we were
>> told that we were not to visit a particular building (which featured
>> in the case); anything we should know about it (e.g. the layout of
>> stores within it) would be provided by evidence at the trial.  The
>> general public could visit that building whenever it wished.
>>
> It is because of that ( and, or course, because it is the jury who
> have the duty to decide, not the judge ) that questions to witnesses
> are allowed. The court likes to think that they make the decisions,
> they test the evidence and they understand it all, with the jury
> simply an annoying and slightly unpredictable necessary evil. In fact
> it's the jury that should be insisting on better evidence testing
> because it is only what they see and hear in court that they can
> properly use to make a decision - so, if, for example, an examining
> lawyer cuts off a witness before the testimony is complete and the
> judge doesn't intervene to get the full story, it's the jury that
> should insist on hearing what the examining lawyer wanted to keep from
> them.

A correspondent in another group, writing from the perspective of one of
the states of the Eastern US, provides this explanation of why your
description doesn't fit my (or his) experience:

] Mandatory disclaimer: I am not a lawyer. I am a paralegal. But I
] have been in a courtroom a few times...
]
] My understanding is that what you describe is pretty widespread. The
] idea is that the jurors are blank slates, evaluating the evidence
] presented to them by the lawyers according the law as explained to
] them by the judge. So they can ask to review the evidence or for
] clarification of the law, but they can't go on their own
] investigations.
]
] The blank slate notion is pretty ridiculous, but the not questioning
] the witnesses actually has some rational basis. There may be
] information which is true, but which is not admissible. A common
] example in civil trial is the presence or absence of insurance. A
] jury may be concerned that they don't want that nice lady to lose her
] house just because she caused an accident, but they are more than
] happy to stick it to her insurance company. As a legal matter the
] presence or absence of insurance is irrelevant to the question before
] the jury. Plaintiffs' lawyers would love it if they could make it
] clear that the defendant has insurance, but the topic is off limits.
] Raising it would be cause for a mistrial.
]
] (Taking this a step further, I have seen the claim that the words
] "jury nullification" coming out of an attorney's mouth in the hearing
] of jurors would result in instant contempt of court proceedings. I
] can neither confirm nor deny this.)
]
] But back to the insurance example, if you were to allow the jury to
] ask the witness questions you would have to vet the questions first,
] and which questions were and were not let through would itself have an
] influence. It would also give the lawyers even more to argue about,
] and who wants that? There is a lot to criticize about the system, but
] I don't think this is one of them.
]


Your mileage may vary.

/dps

[Greegor]

On Sep 30, 12:05 am, Snidely <***@gmail.com> wrote:
> Peter Brooks <***@gmail.com> scribbled something like ...
>
> > On Sep 30, 5:35 am, ***@panix.com (Seth) wrote:
> >> In article <***@gmail.com>,
> >> Evan Kirshenbaum <***@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> >Peter Brooks <***@gmail.com> writes:
> >> >> So they can also ask during the trial, if they wish, any question
> >> >> of a witness - they, as protocol, have to, like anybody else, go
> >> >> through the judge, but they can do it.
>
> >> >If the judge says they can. I suspect that they typically have as
> >> >much right to ask questions of a witness as the baliff, court
> >> >reporter, spectators, or newspaper reporters do. In the US, at
> >> >least.
>
> >> Your suspicion is incorrect. The jurors (during the trial) have less
> >> right than the public at large to do such things.
>
> >> In one case I was on the jury panel (not the trial jury) for, we were
> >> told that we were not to visit a particular building (which featured
> >> in the case); anything we should know about it (e.g. the layout of
> >> stores within it) would be provided by evidence at the trial. The
> >> general public could visit that building whenever it wished.
>
> > It is because of that ( and, or course, because it is the jury who
> > have the duty to decide, not the judge ) that questions to witnesses
> > are allowed. The court likes to think that they make the decisions,
> > they test the evidence and they understand it all, with the jury
> > simply an annoying and slightly unpredictable necessary evil. In fact
> > it's the jury that should be insisting on better evidence testing
> > because it is only what they see and hear in court that they can
> > properly use to make a decision - so, if, for example, an examining
> > lawyer cuts off a witness before the testimony is complete and the
> > judge doesn't intervene to get the full story, it's the jury that
> > should insist on hearing what the examining lawyer wanted to keep from
> > them.
>
> A correspondent in another group, writing from the perspective of one of
> the states of the Eastern US, provides this explanation of why your
> description doesn't fit my (or his) experience:
>
> ] Mandatory disclaimer: I am not a lawyer. I am a paralegal. But I
> ] have been in a courtroom a few times...
> ]
> ] My understanding is that what you describe is pretty widespread. The
> ] idea is that the jurors are blank slates, evaluating the evidence
> ] presented to them by the lawyers according the law as explained to
> ] them by the judge. So they can ask to review the evidence or for
> ] clarification of the law, but they can't go on their own
> ] investigations.
> ]
> ] The blank slate notion is pretty ridiculous, but the not questioning
> ] the witnesses actually has some rational basis. There may be
> ] information which is true, but which is not admissible.

And sometimes common sense is inadmissible.

A woman getting rage and anger counseling
on a weekly basis attacked ME but it went
down that I was the perpetrator and her
rage and anger counseling was inadmissible.


A convicted and ACTIVE street whore can
accuse the Duke Lacrosse team of rape
but her status as a prostitute is not
allowed because of rape shield laws??

Prosecutor Mike Nifong deserves mention here.

> A common
> ] example in civil trial is the presence or absence of insurance. A
> ] jury may be concerned that they don't want that nice lady to lose her
> ] house just because she caused an accident, but they are more than
> ] happy to stick it to her insurance company. As a legal matter the
> ] presence or absence of insurance is irrelevant to the question before
> ] the jury. Plaintiffs' lawyers would love it if they could make it
> ] clear that the defendant has insurance, but the topic is off limits.
> ] Raising it would be cause for a mistrial.
> ]
> ] (Taking this a step further, I have seen the claim that the words
> ] "jury nullification" coming out of an attorney's mouth in the hearing
> ] of jurors would result in instant contempt of court proceedings. I
> ] can neither confirm nor deny this.)

LOL!

Jury Nullification reveals the dark underbelly of
our court system, some of the more garbage aspects
of how our court system works, so of course
most members of the "brotherhood of the bar"
including JUDGES get hysterical if you mention it!

They DO NOT want a jury to nullify any bad law!

The "blank slate" concept you mention is
more truly presented as they want jurors
who are such imbeciles they are AWED
by the system and function as complete
stooges for the circus act it has become.

Anybody who says they know anything
about dirty cops will be dismissed from
jury duty.

Anybody who was ever falsely accused
and was exhonerated (found innocent)
will automatically be dismissed from
jury duty.

Basically they want the DUMBEST TV WATCHERS
for jury duty, not anybody who ever saw where
the local cops go to pee in the bushes at 3AM.

Mention Robert Mullally in Los Angeles
or Abner Louisma in New York and you
will be dismissed from jury duty.

Mention the YouTube video of the cops
strip searching a woman assault victim they
arrested by mistake or the additional
footage from a handheld camera visible
in the shots from the wall mount cameras
and they will dismiss you from jury duty.

You could also try mentioning the REAL
reason that lots of towns have removed
perfectly good working cameras from
squad cars! ( Instead of reducing the
city payout, cameras began to catch
cops doing illegal or dishonest things. )
That would get you dismissed from
jury duty.

They want only the most naive' of idiots who
will assume that the cops only arrest guilty people
and assume that anybody accused is guilty.

That's WHY the Fully Informed Jury Association
is such a threat to attorneys and Judges.

> ] But back to the insurance example, if you were to allow the jury to
> ] ask the witness questions you would have to vet the questions first,
> ] and which questions were and were not let through would itself have an
> ] influence. It would also give the lawyers even more to argue about,
> ] and who wants that?

What?
Defenders actually affording their client
VIGOROUS REPRESENTATION?
Where IS that budget for expert testimony
in public defender cases anyway?

> There is a lot to criticize about the system, but
> ] I don't think this is one of them.

Fully Informed Jury Association

[David Hatunen]

On Thu, 29 Sep 2011 21:31:53 -0700, Peter Brooks wrote:

> * * * The court likes to think that they make the decisions, they
> test the evidence and they understand it all, with the jury simply an
> annoying and slightly unpredictable necessary evil.

hat's not the way it works. The court is the decider of law, the jury is
the decider of fact. They are two different roles.

> In fact it's the
> jury that should be insisting on better evidence testing because it is
> only what they see and hear in court that they can properly use to make
> a decision - so, if, for example, an examining lawyer cuts off a witness
> before the testimony is complete and the judge doesn't intervene to get
> the full story, it's the jury that should insist on hearing what the
> examining lawyer wanted to keep from them.

Good luck with that.

--
Dave Hatunen: Free Baja Arizona

[Evan Kirshenbaum]

***@panix.com (Seth) writes:

> In article <***@gmail.com>,
> Evan Kirshenbaum <***@gmail.com> wrote:
>>Peter Brooks <***@gmail.com> writes:
>
>>> So they can also ask during the trial, if they wish, any question of a
>>> witness - they, as protocol, have to, like anybody else, go through
>>> the judge, but they can do it.
>>
>>If the judge says they can. I suspect that they typically have as
>>much right to ask questions of a witness as the baliff, court
>>reporter, spectators, or newspaper reporters do. In the US, at least.
>
> Your suspicion is incorrect. The jurors (during the trial) have less
> right than the public at large to do such things.

I didn't say "such things". I said "ask questions of a witness".
Specifically in court during the trial (as specified in the point I
was replying to).

> In one case I was on the jury panel (not the trial jury) for, we
> were told that we were not to visit a particular building (which
> featured in the case); anything we should know about it (e.g. the
> layout of stores within it) would be provided by evidence at the
> trial. The general public could visit that building whenever it
> wished.

--
Evan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------
Still with HP Labs |We never met anyone who believed in
SF Bay Area (1982-) |fortune cookies. That's astounding.
Chicago (1964-1982) |Belief in the precognitive powers
|of an Asian pastry is really no
***@gmail.com |wackier than belief in ESP,
|subluxation, or astrology, but you
http://www.kirshenbaum.net/ |just don't hear anyone preaching
|Scientific Cookie-ism.
| Penn and Teller

[Seth]

In article <***@gmail.com>,
Evan Kirshenbaum <***@gmail.com> wrote:
>***@panix.com (Seth) writes:
>> In article <***@gmail.com>,
>> Evan Kirshenbaum <***@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>Peter Brooks <***@gmail.com> writes:
>>
>>>> So they can also ask during the trial, if they wish, any question of a
>>>> witness - they, as protocol, have to, like anybody else, go through
>>>> the judge, but they can do it.
>>>
>>>If the judge says they can. I suspect that they typically have as
>>>much right to ask questions of a witness as the baliff, court
>>>reporter, spectators, or newspaper reporters do. In the US, at least.
>>
>> Your suspicion is incorrect. The jurors (during the trial) have less
>> right than the public at large to do such things.
>
>I didn't say "such things". I said "ask questions of a witness".
>Specifically in court during the trial (as specified in the point I
>was replying to).

Jury instructions: jurors are permitted to send notes to the judge
requesting that certain questions be asked. It's up to the judge what
to do.

In a criminal case, anything not brought out should be presumed to be
in favor of the defendant.

Seth

[tony cooper]

On Wed, 28 Sep 2011 14:20:08 -0700, Evan Kirshenbaum
<***@gmail.com> wrote:

>Jonathan de Boyne Pollard <J.deBoynePollard-***@NTLWorld.COM>
>writes:
>
>>>>> Not in California.
>>>
>>> The rules about what cna and cant be done vary a lot. [...]
>>
>> I had a quick look at the California Penal Code. There's nothing
>> about jurors being permitted to ask questions. There's a lot about
>> admonishing them, though. Jurors can get admonished several times a
>> day under California law.
>
>They can ask questions once they've started to deliberate:
>
> 1138. After the jury have retired for deliberation, if there be
> any disagreement between them as to the testimony, or if they
> desire to be informed on any point of law arising in the case,
> they must require the officer to conduct them into court. Upon
> being brought into court, the information required must be given
> in the presence of, or after notice to, the prosecuting attorney,
> and the defendant or his counsel, or after they have been called.
>
>As for notes,
>
> 1137. Upon retiring for deliberation, the jury may take with them
> all papers (except depositions) which have been received as
> evidence in the cause, or copies of such public records or private
> documents given in evidence as ought not, in the opinion of the
> court, to be taken from the person having them in possession. They
> may also take with them the written instructions given, and notes
> of the testimony or other proceedings on the trial, taken by
> themselves or any of them, but none taken by any other person. The
> court shall provide for the custody and safekeeping of such items.
>
>so yes, they can take written notes and can bring in evidentiary
>papers, but not depositions or transcripts of testimony. For those,
>they have to rely on their notes and memory or go back into court and
>ask that the testimony be read to them again.

A murder case was just decided this week here in Orlando. The accused
claimed his wife attempted suicide and the gun went off when he
struggled to take it from her.

During deliberations, the jury requested that they be able to examine
the gun. The request was granted, and the jurors each dry-fired the
gun decided that the pull required to fire the gun was more than they
would have expected in a struggle as described. The verdict was
guilty of second-degree murder.

There was, of course, other evidence taken in to consideration. For
example, the shot was from 18" away. The jury also requested a
yardstick in the jury room so the jurors could hold the gun 18" away
from something. This request was refused by the judge because a
yardstick, unlike the gun, was not introduced in testimony.





--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida

[Mark Brader]

Tony Cooper:
> A murder case was just decided this week here in Orlando. The accused
> claimed his wife attempted suicide and the gun went off when he
> struggled to take it from her.
>
> During deliberations, the jury requested that they be able to examine
> the gun. The request was granted, and the jurors each dry-fired the
> gun...

> There was, of course, other evidence taken in to consideration. For
> example, the shot was from 18" away. The jury also requested a
> yardstick in the jury room so the jurors could hold the gun 18" away
> from something. This request was refused by the judge because a
> yardstick, unlike the gun, was not introduced in testimony.

That's just silly -- the 18 inches was introduced in testimony.

Presumably there were pads of paper in the jury room -- if I'd been
there, I would have just said "Okay, this is a 5x8 inch pad, so two
sheets lengthwise is 16 inches" or that sort of thing. Or failing
*that*, I'd use paper money, which is near enough 6 inches in both the
US and Canada, to measure someone's forearm, and do it in cubits.
--
Mark Brader "Things are getting too standard around here.
Toronto Time to innovate!"
***@vex.net -- Ian Darwin and David Keldsen

My text in this article is in the public domain.

[R H Draney]

Mark Brader filted:
>
>Tony Cooper:
>
>> There was, of course, other evidence taken in to consideration. For
>> example, the shot was from 18" away. The jury also requested a
>> yardstick in the jury room so the jurors could hold the gun 18" away
>> from something. This request was refused by the judge because a
>> yardstick, unlike the gun, was not introduced in testimony.
>
>That's just silly -- the 18 inches was introduced in testimony.
>
>Presumably there were pads of paper in the jury room -- if I'd been
>there, I would have just said "Okay, this is a 5x8 inch pad, so two
>sheets lengthwise is 16 inches" or that sort of thing.

Or A5 paper, if the pads are from outside North America....r


--
Me? Sarcastic?
Yeah, right.

[tony cooper]

On Wed, 28 Sep 2011 17:33:12 -0500, ***@vex.net (Mark Brader) wrote:

>Tony Cooper:
>> A murder case was just decided this week here in Orlando. The accused
>> claimed his wife attempted suicide and the gun went off when he
>> struggled to take it from her.
>>
>> During deliberations, the jury requested that they be able to examine
>> the gun. The request was granted, and the jurors each dry-fired the
>> gun...
>
>> There was, of course, other evidence taken in to consideration. For
>> example, the shot was from 18" away. The jury also requested a
>> yardstick in the jury room so the jurors could hold the gun 18" away
>> from something. This request was refused by the judge because a
>> yardstick, unlike the gun, was not introduced in testimony.
>
>That's just silly -- the 18 inches was introduced in testimony.
>
>Presumably there were pads of paper in the jury room -- if I'd been
>there, I would have just said "Okay, this is a 5x8 inch pad, so two
>sheets lengthwise is 16 inches" or that sort of thing. Or failing
>*that*, I'd use paper money, which is near enough 6 inches in both the
>US and Canada, to measure someone's forearm, and do it in cubits.

I said nothing about the jurors not being able to figure out a
substitute to determine an 18" distance. I said only that the judge
denied a request by the jury to have a yardstick sent in.

And, yes, the distance 18" was introduced in testimony, but a
yardstick was not. Evidently, the judge did not feel that a yardstick
was necessary for the jurors to estimate how far 18" was away from
something.


--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida

[Peter Moylan]

tony cooper wrote:

> A murder case was just decided this week here in Orlando. The accused
> claimed his wife attempted suicide and the gun went off when he
> struggled to take it from her.
>
> During deliberations, the jury requested that they be able to examine
> the gun. The request was granted, and the jurors each dry-fired the
> gun decided that the pull required to fire the gun was more than they
> would have expected in a struggle as described. The verdict was
> guilty of second-degree murder.

That's not a fair test; you use much greater strength while struggling.
What they should have done is have two jurors struggling to get
possession of the gun.

> There was, of course, other evidence taken in to consideration. For
> example, the shot was from 18" away. The jury also requested a
> yardstick in the jury room so the jurors could hold the gun 18" away
> from something. This request was refused by the judge because a
> yardstick, unlike the gun, was not introduced in testimony.

So an inch is undefined until introduced in testimony?

--
Peter Moylan, Newcastle, NSW, Australia. http://www.pmoylan.org
For an e-mail address, see my web page.

[Peter Brooks]

On Sep 29, 2:42 am, Peter Moylan <***@peter.pmoylan.org.invalid>
wrote:
> tony cooper wrote:
> > A murder case was just decided this week here in Orlando.  The accused
> > claimed his wife attempted suicide and the gun went off when he
> > struggled to take it from her.
>
> > During deliberations, the jury requested that they be able to examine
> > the gun.  The request was granted, and the jurors each dry-fired the
> > gun decided that the pull required to fire the gun was more than they
> > would have expected in a struggle as described.  The verdict was
> > guilty of second-degree murder.
>
> That's not a fair test; you use much greater strength while struggling.
> What they should have done is have two jurors struggling to get
> possession of the gun.
>
While, of course, properly drunk and fired up with crack cocaine.

[tony cooper]

On Wed, 28 Sep 2011 19:20:16 -0700 (PDT), Peter Brooks
<***@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Sep 29, 2:42 am, Peter Moylan <***@peter.pmoylan.org.invalid>
>wrote:
>> tony cooper wrote:
>> > A murder case was just decided this week here in Orlando.  The accused
>> > claimed his wife attempted suicide and the gun went off when he
>> > struggled to take it from her.
>>
>> > During deliberations, the jury requested that they be able to examine
>> > the gun.  The request was granted, and the jurors each dry-fired the
>> > gun decided that the pull required to fire the gun was more than they
>> > would have expected in a struggle as described.  The verdict was
>> > guilty of second-degree murder.
>>
>> That's not a fair test; you use much greater strength while struggling.
>> What they should have done is have two jurors struggling to get
>> possession of the gun.
>>
>While, of course, properly drunk and fired up with crack cocaine.

The murdered wife was allegedly properly drunk and under the influence
of certain prescription drugs.


--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida

[Peter Brooks]

On Sep 29, 6:37 am, tony cooper <***@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, 28 Sep 2011 19:20:16 -0700 (PDT), Peter Brooks
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> <***@gmail.com> wrote:
> >On Sep 29, 2:42 am, Peter Moylan <***@peter.pmoylan.org.invalid>
> >wrote:
> >> tony cooper wrote:
> >> > A murder case was just decided this week here in Orlando. The accused
> >> > claimed his wife attempted suicide and the gun went off when he
> >> > struggled to take it from her.
>
> >> > During deliberations, the jury requested that they be able to examine
> >> > the gun. The request was granted, and the jurors each dry-fired the
> >> > gun decided that the pull required to fire the gun was more than they
> >> > would have expected in a struggle as described. The verdict was
> >> > guilty of second-degree murder.
>
> >> That's not a fair test; you use much greater strength while struggling.
> >> What they should have done is have two jurors struggling to get
> >> possession of the gun.
>
> >While, of course, properly drunk and fired up with crack cocaine.
>
> The murdered wife was allegedly properly drunk and under the influence
> of certain prescription drugs.
>
How spooky that I guessed that it was that line of country without
knowing anything about the case at all!

I've never understood why people think it sensible to keep guns in
their houses, there are quite enough deadly weapons to fuel domestic
disputes without them. On the other hand, if they are serious about
their domestics, why do so few keep howitzers and tanks in the garden?
Mere handguns seem rather pathetic compared to the possibilities
available at your local arms dealer.

[David Hatunen]

On Thu, 29 Sep 2011 00:28:41 -0700, Peter Brooks wrote:

> I've never understood why people think it sensible to keep guns in their
> houses, there are quite enough deadly weapons to fuel domestic disputes
> without them. On the other hand, if they are serious about their
> domestics, why do so few keep howitzers and tanks in the garden? Mere
> handguns seem rather pathetic compared to the possibilities available at
> your local arms dealer.

Howitzers are expensive (and are designed to loft shells in a high
trajectory; the call for personal weapons useful to lob shells into the
next neighborhood is minimal) and tanks are both expensive and hard to
store. And are lousy for fuel economy.


--
Dave Hatunen: Free Baja Arizona

[Bill Graham]

David Hatunen wrote:
> On Thu, 29 Sep 2011 00:28:41 -0700, Peter Brooks wrote:
>
>> I've never understood why people think it sensible to keep guns in
>> their houses, there are quite enough deadly weapons to fuel domestic
>> disputes without them. On the other hand, if they are serious about
>> their domestics, why do so few keep howitzers and tanks in the
>> garden? Mere handguns seem rather pathetic compared to the
>> possibilities available at your local arms dealer.
>
> Howitzers are expensive (and are designed to loft shells in a high
> trajectory; the call for personal weapons useful to lob shells into
> the next neighborhood is minimal) and tanks are both expensive and
> hard to store. And are lousy for fuel economy.

Yes. I would love to have a tank/howitzer available to me in the event that
we are attacked by a foreign power. but they are not only expensive, but
they take up a lot of room, and my garage an barely handle the two cars I
currently own. so, I make do with was cople of pistols and a good hunting
rifle, plus several boxes of ammnition for all three. That was te original
purpose of the second amendment, I believe, and I see no reason to discard
it. That purpose is still very viable. As a matter of fact, it is because of
me and people lkke me that the Japanese didn't follow up Pearl with a
continental US landing in 1941.

[Robert Bannister]

On 30/09/11 9:39 AM, Bill Graham wrote:
> David Hatunen wrote:
>> On Thu, 29 Sep 2011 00:28:41 -0700, Peter Brooks wrote:
>>
>>> I've never understood why people think it sensible to keep guns in
>>> their houses, there are quite enough deadly weapons to fuel domestic
>>> disputes without them. On the other hand, if they are serious about
>>> their domestics, why do so few keep howitzers and tanks in the
>>> garden? Mere handguns seem rather pathetic compared to the
>>> possibilities available at your local arms dealer.
>>
>> Howitzers are expensive (and are designed to loft shells in a high
>> trajectory; the call for personal weapons useful to lob shells into
>> the next neighborhood is minimal) and tanks are both expensive and
>> hard to store. And are lousy for fuel economy.
>
> Yes. I would love to have a tank/howitzer available to me in the event
> that we are attacked by a foreign power. but they are not only
> expensive, but they take up a lot of room, and my garage an barely
> handle the two cars I currently own. so, I make do with was cople of
> pistols and a good hunting rifle, plus several boxes of ammnition for
> all three. That was te original purpose of the second amendment, I
> believe, and I see no reason to discard it. That purpose is still very
> viable. As a matter of fact, it is because of me and people lkke me that
> the Japanese didn't follow up Pearl with a continental US landing in 1941.

I can think of a lot of reasons that are more likely - the main one
being logistics.

--
Robert Bannister

[Bill Graham]

Robert Bannister wrote:
> On 30/09/11 9:39 AM, Bill Graham wrote:
>> David Hatunen wrote:
>>> On Thu, 29 Sep 2011 00:28:41 -0700, Peter Brooks wrote:
>>>
>>>> I've never understood why people think it sensible to keep guns in
>>>> their houses, there are quite enough deadly weapons to fuel
>>>> domestic disputes without them. On the other hand, if they are
>>>> serious about their domestics, why do so few keep howitzers and
>>>> tanks in the garden? Mere handguns seem rather pathetic compared
>>>> to the possibilities available at your local arms dealer.
>>>
>>> Howitzers are expensive (and are designed to loft shells in a high
>>> trajectory; the call for personal weapons useful to lob shells into
>>> the next neighborhood is minimal) and tanks are both expensive and
>>> hard to store. And are lousy for fuel economy.
>>
>> Yes. I would love to have a tank/howitzer available to me in the
>> event that we are attacked by a foreign power. but they are not only
>> expensive, but they take up a lot of room, and my garage an barely
>> handle the two cars I currently own. so, I make do with was cople of
>> pistols and a good hunting rifle, plus several boxes of ammnition for
>> all three. That was te original purpose of the second amendment, I
>> believe, and I see no reason to discard it. That purpose is still
>> very viable. As a matter of fact, it is because of me and people
>> lkke me that the Japanese didn't follow up Pearl with a continental
>> US landing in 1941.
>
> I can think of a lot of reasons that are more likely - the main one
> being logistics.

Perhaps, but I didn't, "Think my reason up". It came right out of the mouth
of the Japanese admiral who comandeered their fleet at the time.

[David Hatunen]

On Thu, 29 Sep 2011 18:39:50 -0700, Bill Graham wrote:

> As a matter of fact, it is because of me and people lkke me that
> the Japanese didn't follow up Pearl with a continental US landing in
> 1941.

Do you really believe that?

They sure would have had a lot harder time sneaking up on us with a full
landing force at sea and not just their aircraft carriers.

--
Dave Hatunen: Free Baja Arizona

[Bill Graham]

David Hatunen wrote:
> On Thu, 29 Sep 2011 18:39:50 -0700, Bill Graham wrote:
>
>> As a matter of fact, it is because of me and people lkke me that
>> the Japanese didn't follow up Pearl with a continental US landing in
>> 1941.
>
> Do you really believe that?
>
> They sure would have had a lot harder time sneaking up on us with a
> full landing force at sea and not just their aircraft carriers.

I believe it because the Japanese admiral said it after the war was over.
Whether or not our handguns would have made any significant difference, we
will never know. But the Japanese thought they would have. I also know that
I have carried a handgun in my pocket most of my adult life, and I have
never been afraid to go anywhere I wanted to go during all of that time. My
dad used to say that nothing gives a man confidence like money in the bank.
I say that's true, but having a pistol in your pocket plus money in the bank
is very hard to beat.

[Mike Lyle]

On Thu, 6 Oct 2011 18:15:20 -0700, "Bill Graham" <***@comcast.net>
wrote:

>David Hatunen wrote:
>> On Thu, 29 Sep 2011 18:39:50 -0700, Bill Graham wrote:
>>
>>> As a matter of fact, it is because of me and people lkke me that
>>> the Japanese didn't follow up Pearl with a continental US landing in
>>> 1941.
>>
>> Do you really believe that?
>>
>> They sure would have had a lot harder time sneaking up on us with a
>> full landing force at sea and not just their aircraft carriers.
>
>I believe it because the Japanese admiral said it after the war was over.

Must be true, then.

>Whether or not our handguns would have made any significant difference, we
>will never know. But the Japanese thought they would have.

The same Japanese who took on the world's major industrial power and
two colonial empires, among other foes, thought an expeditionary force
could be repulsed by a bunch of amateurs with pocket-pistols?

>I also know that
>I have carried a handgun in my pocket most of my adult life, and I have
>never been afraid to go anywhere I wanted to go during all of that time. My
>dad used to say that nothing gives a man confidence like money in the bank.
>I say that's true, but having a pistol in your pocket plus money in the bank
>is very hard to beat.

To each his own, etc. But I'm having a hard time thinking of _anybody_
who's afraid to go anywhere they want to go. Heck, I even forget to
bring my Swiss Army knife most daysl.

--
Mike.

[Peter Moylan]

Mike Lyle wrote:
> On Thu, 6 Oct 2011 18:15:20 -0700, "Bill Graham" <***@comcast.net>
> wrote:

>> I also know that I have carried a handgun in my pocket most of my
>> adult life, and I have never been afraid to go anywhere I wanted to
>> go during all of that time. My dad used to say that nothing gives a
>> man confidence like money in the bank. I say that's true, but
>> having a pistol in your pocket plus money in the bank is very hard
>> to beat.
>
> To each his own, etc. But I'm having a hard time thinking of
> _anybody_ who's afraid to go anywhere they want to go. Heck, I even
> forget to bring my Swiss Army knife most daysl.
>
I've met lots of people who are afraid to go to the USA, because of
rumours about people who carry pistols in their pockets.

--
Peter Moylan, Newcastle, NSW, Australia. http://www.pmoylan.org
For an e-mail address, see my web page.

[Frank S]

"Peter Moylan" <***@peter.pmoylan.org.invalid> wrote in message
news:***@westnet.com.au...
> Mike Lyle wrote:
>> On Thu, 6 Oct 2011 18:15:20 -0700, "Bill Graham" <***@comcast.net>
>> wrote:
>
>>> I also know that I have carried a handgun in my pocket most of my
>>> adult life, and I have never been afraid to go anywhere I wanted to
>>> go during all of that time. My dad used to say that nothing gives a
>>> man confidence like money in the bank. I say that's true, but
>>> having a pistol in your pocket plus money in the bank is very hard
>>> to beat.
>>
>> To each his own, etc. But I'm having a hard time thinking of
>> _anybody_ who's afraid to go anywhere they want to go. Heck, I even
>> forget to bring my Swiss Army knife most daysl.
>>
> I've met lots of people who are afraid to go to the USA, because of
> rumours about people who carry pistols in their pockets.
>
>

One of the unfortunate facts about modern urban life is that you don't have
much of a chance of figuring out who in the crowd actually is armed. Way I
heard it, those baggy gangsta-looking clothing styles were designed
precisely to give everyone the appearance of being a dangerous
weapon-carrier, as an evolutionary consequence of the original adoption of
the excessively roomy garments by people who actually used them for the
purpose of hiding bulky weapons. Of course everyone - EVERYone - carries a
back pack or similar these days.

One of the sobering facts about carrying a pistol in your pocket is that
when someone finds out about it, they are likely to expect you to use it.
That is not only the ones you'd want to be afraid of you, but also your
neighbors up the street who will see you while they are involved in some
conflict and expect you to act like a police officer. I'd guess that very
few pocket-pistol carriers have the training or the judgment to respond
appropriately; indeed, I'd wager they have a very unrealistic idea of what
it is like to use a pistol in a circumstance like they anticipate in their
power fantasies. It might make them feel better, carrying a pistol in a
pocket, but if they are at all sensible they will never, ever find occasion
to let it be known they are carrying, or take it in their hand in public.


--
Frank ess

[Bill Graham]

Frank S wrote:
> "Peter Moylan" <***@peter.pmoylan.org.invalid> wrote in message
> news:***@westnet.com.au...
>> Mike Lyle wrote:
>>> On Thu, 6 Oct 2011 18:15:20 -0700, "Bill Graham" <***@comcast.net>
>>> wrote:
>>
>>>> I also know that I have carried a handgun in my pocket most of my
>>>> adult life, and I have never been afraid to go anywhere I wanted to
>>>> go during all of that time. My dad used to say that nothing gives a
>>>> man confidence like money in the bank. I say that's true, but
>>>> having a pistol in your pocket plus money in the bank is very hard
>>>> to beat.
>>>
>>> To each his own, etc. But I'm having a hard time thinking of
>>> _anybody_ who's afraid to go anywhere they want to go. Heck, I even
>>> forget to bring my Swiss Army knife most daysl.
>>>
>> I've met lots of people who are afraid to go to the USA, because of
>> rumours about people who carry pistols in their pockets.
>>
>>
>
> One of the unfortunate facts about modern urban life is that you
> don't have much of a chance of figuring out who in the crowd actually
> is armed. Way I heard it, those baggy gangsta-looking clothing styles
> were designed precisely to give everyone the appearance of being a
> dangerous weapon-carrier, as an evolutionary consequence of the
> original adoption of the excessively roomy garments by people who
> actually used them for the purpose of hiding bulky weapons. Of course
> everyone - EVERYone - carries a back pack or similar these days.
>
> One of the sobering facts about carrying a pistol in your pocket is
> that when someone finds out about it, they are likely to expect you
> to use it. That is not only the ones you'd want to be afraid of you,
> but also your neighbors up the street who will see you while they are
> involved in some conflict and expect you to act like a police
> officer. I'd guess that very few pocket-pistol carriers have the
> training or the judgment to respond appropriately; indeed, I'd wager
> they have a very unrealistic idea of what it is like to use a pistol
> in a circumstance like they anticipate in their power fantasies. It
> might make them feel better, carrying a pistol in a pocket, but if
> they are at all sensible they will never, ever find occasion to let
> it be known they are carrying, or take it in their hand in public.

Which is exactly why I carry one concealed. So nobody knows I have it. And,
this is also why I am against laws against carrying concealed weapons.
(that, and the second amendment, which specifically says, "shall not be
infringed". Making you carry it unconcealed is a big time infringement, IMO.
But then, my interpretation of English is decidedly different than is
SCOTUS'.

[CDB]

Peter Moylan wrote:
> Mike Lyle wrote:
>> "Bill Graham" <***@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>>> I also know that I have carried a handgun in my pocket most of my
>>> adult life, and I have never been afraid to go anywhere I wanted
>>> to go during all of that time. My dad used to say that nothing
>>> gives a man confidence like money in the bank. I say that's true,
>>> but having a pistol in your pocket plus money in the bank is very
>>> hard to beat.
>>
>> To each his own, etc. But I'm having a hard time thinking of
>> _anybody_ who's afraid to go anywhere they want to go. Heck, I even
>> forget to bring my Swiss Army knife most daysl.
>>
> I've met lots of people who are afraid to go to the USA, because of
> rumours about people who carry pistols in their pockets.
>>
Luck is better than shooting irons. I once took a walk, suited and
tied, through a poor district of Washington DC, and got nothing worse
from the locals than some incredulous looks.

[Leslie Danks]

CDB wrote:

> Peter Moylan wrote:
>> Mike Lyle wrote:
>>> "Bill Graham" <***@comcast.net> wrote:
>>
>>>> I also know that I have carried a handgun in my pocket most of my
>>>> adult life, and I have never been afraid to go anywhere I wanted
>>>> to go during all of that time. My dad used to say that nothing
>>>> gives a man confidence like money in the bank. I say that's true,
>>>> but having a pistol in your pocket plus money in the bank is very
>>>> hard to beat.
>>>
>>> To each his own, etc. But I'm having a hard time thinking of
>>> _anybody_ who's afraid to go anywhere they want to go. Heck, I even
>>> forget to bring my Swiss Army knife most daysl.
>>>
>> I've met lots of people who are afraid to go to the USA, because of
>> rumours about people who carry pistols in their pockets.
>>>
> Luck is better than shooting irons. I once took a walk, suited and
> tied, through a poor district of Washington DC, and got nothing worse
> from the locals than some incredulous looks.

From your attire and general demeanour, the bad boys probably concluded that
you had connections such that mugging you would be followed by retribution
too terrible to contemplate.

--
Les
(BrE)

[CDB]

Leslie Danks wrote:
> CDB wrote:
>> Peter Moylan wrote:
>>> Mike Lyle wrote:
>>>> "Bill Graham" <***@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>>> I also know that I have carried a handgun in my pocket most of
>>>>> my adult life, and I have never been afraid to go anywhere I
>>>>> wanted to go during all of that time. My dad used to say that
>>>>> nothing gives a man confidence like money in the bank. I say
>>>>> that's true, but having a pistol in your pocket plus money in
>>>>> the bank is very hard to beat.
>>>>
>>>> To each his own, etc. But I'm having a hard time thinking of
>>>> _anybody_ who's afraid to go anywhere they want to go. Heck, I
>>>> even forget to bring my Swiss Army knife most daysl.
>>>>
>>> I've met lots of people who are afraid to go to the USA, because
>>> of rumours about people who carry pistols in their pockets.
>>>>
>> Luck is better than shooting irons. I once took a walk, suited and
>> tied, through a poor district of Washington DC, and got nothing
>> worse from the locals than some incredulous looks.
>
> From your attire and general demeanour, the bad boys probably
> concluded that you had connections such that mugging you would be
> followed by retribution too terrible to contemplate.
>>
Isn't it bad luck to kill a fool?

[Bill Graham]

Leslie Danks wrote:
> CDB wrote:
>
>> Peter Moylan wrote:
>>> Mike Lyle wrote:
>>>> "Bill Graham" <***@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>>> I also know that I have carried a handgun in my pocket most of my
>>>>> adult life, and I have never been afraid to go anywhere I wanted
>>>>> to go during all of that time. My dad used to say that nothing
>>>>> gives a man confidence like money in the bank. I say that's true,
>>>>> but having a pistol in your pocket plus money in the bank is very
>>>>> hard to beat.
>>>>
>>>> To each his own, etc. But I'm having a hard time thinking of
>>>> _anybody_ who's afraid to go anywhere they want to go. Heck, I even
>>>> forget to bring my Swiss Army knife most daysl.
>>>>
>>> I've met lots of people who are afraid to go to the USA, because of
>>> rumours about people who carry pistols in their pockets.
>>>>
>> Luck is better than shooting irons. I once took a walk, suited and
>> tied, through a poor district of Washington DC, and got nothing worse
>> from the locals than some incredulous looks.
>
> From your attire and general demeanour, the bad boys probably
> concluded that you had connections such that mugging you would be
> followed by retribution too terrible to contemplate.

Its also easier to conceal a handgun in a shoulder holster under a suit
jacket than it is in a coat pocket as I have had to do most of my life. I
seldom wore a suit. Some of the new titanium frame guns are smaller,
lighter, and easier to carry, but they are pretty high priced.

[Bill Graham]

Peter Moylan wrote:
> Mike Lyle wrote:
>> On Thu, 6 Oct 2011 18:15:20 -0700, "Bill Graham" <***@comcast.net>
>> wrote:
>
>>> I also know that I have carried a handgun in my pocket most of my
>>> adult life, and I have never been afraid to go anywhere I wanted to
>>> go during all of that time. My dad used to say that nothing gives a
>>> man confidence like money in the bank. I say that's true, but
>>> having a pistol in your pocket plus money in the bank is very hard
>>> to beat.
>>
>> To each his own, etc. But I'm having a hard time thinking of
>> _anybody_ who's afraid to go anywhere they want to go. Heck, I even
>> forget to bring my Swiss Army knife most daysl.
>>
> I've met lots of people who are afraid to go to the USA, because of
> rumours about people who carry pistols in their pockets.

These people are stupid. It's not the pistols that cause you harm. Its the
people who do that. Nothing could be safer than to have all the honest
people carry one. You would be surrounded by powerful friends should you
encounter any trouble. Had there been just one armed, honest citizen aboard
each of those four planes on 9-11-01, There would be a lot of people alive
today that were dead on 9-12-01. The mistake people like you make is
believing that the existence of a weapon makes one a criminal. Most people
are honest citizens, and if they could be armed, they would be a tremendous
asset to the rest of us.

[Robert Bannister]

On 10/10/11 6:36 AM, Bill Graham wrote:
> Peter Moylan wrote:
>> Mike Lyle wrote:
>>> On Thu, 6 Oct 2011 18:15:20 -0700, "Bill Graham" <***@comcast.net>
>>> wrote:
>>
>>>> I also know that I have carried a handgun in my pocket most of my
>>>> adult life, and I have never been afraid to go anywhere I wanted to
>>>> go during all of that time. My dad used to say that nothing gives a
>>>> man confidence like money in the bank. I say that's true, but
>>>> having a pistol in your pocket plus money in the bank is very hard
>>>> to beat.
>>>
>>> To each his own, etc. But I'm having a hard time thinking of
>>> _anybody_ who's afraid to go anywhere they want to go. Heck, I even
>>> forget to bring my Swiss Army knife most daysl.
>>>
>> I've met lots of people who are afraid to go to the USA, because of
>> rumours about people who carry pistols in their pockets.
>
> These people are stupid. It's not the pistols that cause you harm. Its
> the people who do that. Nothing could be safer than to have all the
> honest people carry one. You would be surrounded by powerful friends
> should you encounter any trouble. Had there been just one armed, honest
> citizen aboard each of those four planes on 9-11-01, There would be a
> lot of people alive today that were dead on 9-12-01. The mistake people
> like you make is believing that the existence of a weapon makes one a
> criminal. Most people are honest citizens, and if they could be armed,
> they would be a tremendous asset to the rest of us.

Keep on taking the pills.

--
Robert Bannister

[Bill Graham]

Mike Lyle wrote:
> On Thu, 6 Oct 2011 18:15:20 -0700, "Bill Graham" <***@comcast.net>
> wrote:
>
>> David Hatunen wrote:
>>> On Thu, 29 Sep 2011 18:39:50 -0700, Bill Graham wrote:
>>>
>>>> As a matter of fact, it is because of me and people lkke me that
>>>> the Japanese didn't follow up Pearl with a continental US landing
>>>> in 1941.
>>>
>>> Do you really believe that?
>>>
>>> They sure would have had a lot harder time sneaking up on us with a
>>> full landing force at sea and not just their aircraft carriers.
>>
>> I believe it because the Japanese admiral said it after the war was
>> over.
>
> Must be true, then.

Well, after all, this is what we are talking about, isn't it? This is why,
straight from the horse's mouth. If anyone would know, it would be the
Japanese admiral of the fleet that attacked Pearl. I'm sure he discussed
what he should do after that attack with his superiors, aned why he should
do it. I know that I would sure think twice before I launched an attack on
the US, knowing how many handguns were he3ld by the people here. You could
bomb the hell our of us, but with only a couple of hundred airplanes carried
by a few carriers, and almost ten million square miles of territory to land
on and take over, the Japanese made a very wise decision in my opinion.

[Robert Bannister]

On 7/10/11 9:15 AM, Bill Graham wrote:
> David Hatunen wrote:
>> On Thu, 29 Sep 2011 18:39:50 -0700, Bill Graham wrote:
>>
>>> As a matter of fact, it is because of me and people lkke me that
>>> the Japanese didn't follow up Pearl with a continental US landing in
>>> 1941.
>>
>> Do you really believe that?
>>
>> They sure would have had a lot harder time sneaking up on us with a
>> full landing force at sea and not just their aircraft carriers.
>
> I believe it because the Japanese admiral said it after the war was
> over. Whether or not our handguns would have made any significant
> difference, we will never know. But the Japanese thought they would
> have. I also know that I have carried a handgun in my pocket most of my
> adult life, and I have never been afraid to go anywhere I wanted to go
> during all of that time. My dad used to say that nothing gives a man
> confidence like money in the bank. I say that's true, but having a
> pistol in your pocket plus money in the bank is very hard to beat.

I have never carried a gun, but I don't recall being afraid of going
wherever I wanted. You must live in a dangerous place.

--
Robert Bannister

[Skitt]

Robert Bannister wrote:
> Bill Graham wrote:
>> David Hatunen wrote:
>>> Bill Graham wrote:

>>>> As a matter of fact, it is because of me and people lkke me that
>>>> the Japanese didn't follow up Pearl with a continental US landing in
>>>> 1941.
>>>
>>> Do you really believe that?
>>>
>>> They sure would have had a lot harder time sneaking up on us with a
>>> full landing force at sea and not just their aircraft carriers.
>>
>> I believe it because the Japanese admiral said it after the war was
>> over. Whether or not our handguns would have made any significant
>> difference, we will never know. But the Japanese thought they would
>> have. I also know that I have carried a handgun in my pocket most of my
>> adult life, and I have never been afraid to go anywhere I wanted to go
>> during all of that time. My dad used to say that nothing gives a man
>> confidence like money in the bank. I say that's true, but having a
>> pistol in your pocket plus money in the bank is very hard to beat.
>
> I have never carried a gun, but I don't recall being afraid of going
> wherever I wanted. You must live in a dangerous place.
>

There are several neighborhoods I would not set foot in around here,
especially after dark. Those neighborhoods are in San Francisco,
Oakland, Richmond, and a few other smaller cities. Someone gets killed
in the SF Bay Area daily, and sometimes it is just an innocent
bystander. The rest of the time it is gang warfare, a robbery gone
wrong, or a disgruntled employee going postal. There was one of the
latter just a couple of days ago, killing several people and wounding
some others.

A couple of weeks ago a man got killed and a woman injured within a
block of our house, although we live in a generally safe area. It
appeared to be a targeted attack on a gold dealer and his wife as they
were leaving their house for work.

Carrying a weapon would not make me feel any safer. Just today there
was a shootout between the police and someone who managed to grab a gun
from a policeman. I haven't caught the full story on the news yet.

--
Skitt (SF Bay Area)
http://come.to/skitt

[Peter Brooks]

On Oct 8, 2:31 am, Skitt <***@comcast.net> wrote:
> Robert Bannister wrote:
> > Bill Graham wrote:
> >> David Hatunen wrote:
> >>> Bill Graham wrote:
> >>>> As a matter of fact, it is because of me and people lkke me that
> >>>> the Japanese didn't follow up Pearl with a continental US landing in
> >>>> 1941.
>
> >>> Do you really believe that?
>
> >>> They sure would have had a lot harder time sneaking up on us with a
> >>> full landing force at sea and not just their aircraft carriers.
>
> >> I believe it because the Japanese admiral said it after the war was
> >> over. Whether or not our handguns would have made any significant
> >> difference, we will never know. But the Japanese thought they would
> >> have. I also know that I have carried a handgun in my pocket most of my
> >> adult life, and I have never been afraid to go anywhere I wanted to go
> >> during all of that time. My dad used to say that nothing gives a man
> >> confidence like money in the bank. I say that's true, but having a
> >> pistol in your pocket plus money in the bank is very hard to beat.
>
> > I have never carried a gun, but I don't recall being afraid of going
> > wherever I wanted. You must live in a dangerous place.
>
> There are several neighborhoods I would not set foot in around here,
> especially after dark.  Those neighborhoods are in San Francisco,
> Oakland, Richmond, and a few other smaller cities.  Someone gets killed
> in the SF Bay Area daily, and sometimes it is just an innocent
> bystander.  The rest of the time it is gang warfare, a robbery gone
> wrong, or a disgruntled employee going postal.  There was one of the
> latter just a couple of days ago, killing several people and wounding
> some others.
>
> A couple of weeks ago a man got killed and a woman injured within a
> block of our house, although we live in a generally safe area.  It
> appeared to be a targeted attack on a gold dealer and his wife as they
> were leaving their house for work.
>
> Carrying a weapon would not make me feel any safer.  Just today there
> was a shootout between the police and someone who managed to grab a gun
> from a policeman.  I haven't caught the full story on the news yet.
>
Why not leave?

I suppose that, if you live in a war zone then turning other places
into them doesn't seem that unreasonable.

[Skitt]

Peter Brooks wrote:
> Skitt wrote:

>> There are several neighborhoods I would not set foot in around here,
>> especially after dark. Those neighborhoods are in San Francisco,
>> Oakland, Richmond, and a few other smaller cities. Someone gets killed
>> in the SF Bay Area daily, and sometimes it is just an innocent
>> bystander. The rest of the time it is gang warfare, a robbery gone
>> wrong, or a disgruntled employee going postal. There was one of the
>> latter just a couple of days ago, killing several people and wounding
>> some others.
>>
>> A couple of weeks ago a man got killed and a woman injured within a
>> block of our house, although we live in a generally safe area. It
>> appeared to be a targeted attack on a gold dealer and his wife as they
>> were leaving their house for work.
>>
>> Carrying a weapon would not make me feel any safer. Just today there
>> was a shootout between the police and someone who managed to grab a gun
>> from a policeman. I haven't caught the full story on the news yet.
>>
> Why not leave?

Because, as I said above, we live in a generally safe area. Crime
happens even in the best of neighborhoods. There is also an economic
consideration, as we are not independently wealthy.

Just two days ago, my wife accidentally left her car unlocked in the
driveway of our son's house in an excellent up-scale San Jose
neighborhood. It was the middle of the day. When my wife looked out
the window and down to the driveway, she noticed that her car's trunk
was open. She went out to check, and realized that someone had gone
through all the stuff in the car's interior and trunk. The only thing
taken was a gym bag with a change of clothes that had been in the trunk.
My wife had brought the clothes in case her D-I-L wanted her to stay
overnight. The D-I-L had knee surgery a few days ago and needed
occasional assistance in taking care of her children while her husband
was at work.

Now they are going to install a camera monitoring the front yard. Their
front widows are quite a bit above street level, and the yard is not
easily visible without going right up to the windows and looking down.

--
Skitt (SF Bay Area)
http://come.to/skitt

[Mike Barnes]

Skitt <***@comcast.net>:
>Just two days ago, my wife accidentally left her car unlocked in the
>driveway of our son's house in an excellent up-scale San Jose
>neighborhood. It was the middle of the day. When my wife looked out
>the window and down to the driveway, she noticed that her car's trunk
>was open. She went out to check, and realized that someone had gone
>through all the stuff in the car's interior and trunk.

So the perp had walked along the street trying the doors on all the cars
in people's drives? In a neighbourhood in which, I would guess from your
description, such activity would be damned suspicious?

--
Mike Barnes
Cheshire, England

[Skitt]

Mike Barnes wrote:
> Skitt:

>> Just two days ago, my wife accidentally left her car unlocked in the
>> driveway of our son's house in an excellent up-scale San Jose
>> neighborhood. It was the middle of the day. When my wife looked out
>> the window and down to the driveway, she noticed that her car's trunk
>> was open. She went out to check, and realized that someone had gone
>> through all the stuff in the car's interior and trunk.
>
> So the perp had walked along the street trying the doors on all the cars
> in people's drives? In a neighbourhood in which, I would guess from your
> description, such activity would be damned suspicious?
>

It would seem that way. This was during the work week, so not too many
neighbors were home, I suppose, and there would have been very few cars
in the driveways. Anyway, I could hardly believe what had happened.

--
Skitt (SF Bay Area)
http://come.to/skitt

[Robert Bannister]

On 10/10/11 6:46 AM, Skitt wrote:
> Mike Barnes wrote:
>> Skitt:
>
>>> Just two days ago, my wife accidentally left her car unlocked in the
>>> driveway of our son's house in an excellent up-scale San Jose
>>> neighborhood. It was the middle of the day. When my wife looked out
>>> the window and down to the driveway, she noticed that her car's trunk
>>> was open. She went out to check, and realized that someone had gone
>>> through all the stuff in the car's interior and trunk.
>>
>> So the perp had walked along the street trying the doors on all the cars
>> in people's drives? In a neighbourhood in which, I would guess from your
>> description, such activity would be damned suspicious?
>>
>
> It would seem that way. This was during the work week, so not too many
> neighbors were home, I suppose, and there would have been very few cars
> in the driveways. Anyway, I could hardly believe what had happened.
>

Activities only look suspicious if the person doing them acts in a
suspicious way. Look confidant as if you belong there - people look,
wonder why their neighbour is having a dead-beat check her car - oh,
must be family or some sort of tradesman - and look away.

--
Robert Bannister

[Peter Moylan]

Skitt wrote:

> Carrying a weapon would not make me feel any safer.

The statistics seem to support that belief. The last time I checked,
people who carried guns were more likely to be shot.

There's also a flow-on effect. When the Australian police decided -
rather stupidly, in my opinion - to start carrying guns, a few criminals
followed their lead.

--
Peter Moylan, Newcastle, NSW, Australia. http://www.pmoylan.org
For an e-mail address, see my web page.

[Robert Bannister]

On 8/10/11 2:22 PM, Peter Moylan wrote:
> Skitt wrote:
>
>> Carrying a weapon would not make me feel any safer.
>
> The statistics seem to support that belief. The last time I checked,
> people who carried guns were more likely to be shot.
>
> There's also a flow-on effect. When the Australian police decided -
> rather stupidly, in my opinion - to start carrying guns, a few criminals
> followed their lead.
>

Despite that, we have a much greater chance of being shot "accidentally"
by a police officer than by a criminal.

--
Robert Bannister

[tony cooper]

On Sun, 09 Oct 2011 08:02:37 +0800, Robert Bannister
<***@bigpond.com> wrote:

>On 8/10/11 2:22 PM, Peter Moylan wrote:
>> Skitt wrote:
>>
>>> Carrying a weapon would not make me feel any safer.
>>
>> The statistics seem to support that belief. The last time I checked,
>> people who carried guns were more likely to be shot.
>>
>> There's also a flow-on effect. When the Australian police decided -
>> rather stupidly, in my opinion - to start carrying guns, a few criminals
>> followed their lead.
>>
>
>Despite that, we have a much greater chance of being shot "accidentally"
>by a police officer than by a criminal.

Yes, but unless you are a criminal the only way you are likely to get
shot by a police officer is by accident. You may be shot by a
criminal by accident or on purpose.


--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida

[Greegor]

On Oct 8, 11:01 pm, tony cooper <***@gmail.com> wrote:
> Yes, but unless you are a criminal the only way you are likely to get
> shot by a police officer is by accident.  You may be shot by a
> criminal by accident or on purpose.

I was once a "naive' suburban white guy" too.
Good luck learning about reality.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abner_Louima

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rodney_King

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amadou_Diallo_shooting

http://www.usd.edu/arts-and-sciences/political-science/farber-center-for-civic-education/upload/Bob-20Mullally-20Flyer-031800.pdf

[Robert Bannister]

On 9/10/11 1:15 PM, Greegor wrote:
> On Oct 8, 11:01 pm, tony cooper<***@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Yes, but unless you are a criminal the only way you are likely to get
>> shot by a police officer is by accident. You may be shot by a
>> criminal by accident or on purpose.
>
> I was once a "naive' suburban white guy" too.
> Good luck learning about reality.
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abner_Louima
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rodney_King
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amadou_Diallo_shooting
>
> http://www.usd.edu/arts-and-sciences/political-science/farber-center-for-civic-education/upload/Bob-20Mullally-20Flyer-031800.pdf
>

There was a case in the USA ages ago when a deaf mute tried to get the
card out of his pocket that said "I am deaf and dumb" or words to that
effect. One police officer thought he was drawing a gun, so he fired and
shot his fellow officer and then one of them shot the deaf mute dead. I
tried to google it, but "deaf mute shot dead" produced so many separate
incidents, I was overwhelmed.

--
Robert Bannister

[Peter Moylan]

tony cooper wrote:
> On Sun, 09 Oct 2011 08:02:37 +0800, Robert Bannister
> <***@bigpond.com> wrote:
>
>> On 8/10/11 2:22 PM, Peter Moylan wrote:
>>> Skitt wrote:
>>>
>>>> Carrying a weapon would not make me feel any safer.
>>> The statistics seem to support that belief. The last time I checked,
>>> people who carried guns were more likely to be shot.
>>>
>>> There's also a flow-on effect. When the Australian police decided -
>>> rather stupidly, in my opinion - to start carrying guns, a few criminals
>>> followed their lead.
>>>
>> Despite that, we have a much greater chance of being shot "accidentally"
>> by a police officer than by a criminal.
>
> Yes, but unless you are a criminal

or a mentally ill person, or someone involved in a domestic dispute

> the only way you are likely to get
> shot by a police officer is by accident. You may be shot by a
> criminal by accident or on purpose.

Bear in mind that both Rob and I are in Australia. The probability that
a criminal is carrying a gun is still moderately low. The probability of
a police officer carrying a gun is high.

Besides, there have been too many recent cases showing that at least
some police will shoot first and determine guilt or innocence later.

--
Peter Moylan, Newcastle, NSW, Australia. http://www.pmoylan.org
For an e-mail address, see my web page.

[Bill Graham]

Robert Bannister wrote:
> On 8/10/11 2:22 PM, Peter Moylan wrote:
>> Skitt wrote:
>>
>>> Carrying a weapon would not make me feel any safer.
>>
>> The statistics seem to support that belief. The last time I checked,
>> people who carried guns were more likely to be shot.
>>
>> There's also a flow-on effect. When the Australian police decided -
>> rather stupidly, in my opinion - to start carrying guns, a few
>> criminals followed their lead.
>>
>
> Despite that, we have a much greater chance of being shot
> "accidentally" by a police officer than by a criminal.

Of course. Accidental shootings will have to go up when more people carry
guns. but itsd the intentional deaths that I am concerned with. We can get
rid of car accidents by eliminating cars too, but then nobody would be able
to travel anywhere. A gun is a tool. It is for killing pe3ople. When you
really need the tool, it is invaluable. I intend to always have one
available to me. If my neighbor accidently hurts himself with his tool,
well, that's too bad, but it doesn't mean that I am going to stop carrying
mine.

[Seth]

In article <Q8GdnZRyzJCHcRLTnZ2dnUVZ8n-***@westnet.com.au>,
Peter Moylan <***@peter.pmoylan.org.invalid> wrote:
>Skitt wrote:
>
>> Carrying a weapon would not make me feel any safer.
>
>The statistics seem to support that belief. The last time I checked,
>people who carried guns were more likely to be shot.

Of course, if you do that statistics correctly (e.g. gang members who
carry guns are less likely to be shot than gang members who don't
carry guns, and non-gang-members who carry guns are less likely to be
shot than non-gang-members who don't carry guns; but gang members are
much more likely to be shot in general, and are also much more likely
to carry guns) you might see a different result.

The question is whether you want to look at statistics, or at cause
and effect. The latter is useful for deciding on behavior.

Seth

[Peter Moylan]

Seth wrote:
> In article <Q8GdnZRyzJCHcRLTnZ2dnUVZ8n-***@westnet.com.au>,
> Peter Moylan <***@peter.pmoylan.org.invalid> wrote:
>> Skitt wrote:
>>
>>> Carrying a weapon would not make me feel any safer.
>> The statistics seem to support that belief. The last time I checked,
>> people who carried guns were more likely to be shot.
>
> Of course, if you do that statistics correctly (e.g. gang members who
> carry guns are less likely to be shot than gang members who don't
> carry guns

Is there any evidence to support that claim? From what I've heard, and
from what I know of human behaviour, gang members who carry guns are
more likely to get into fatal arguments than those who don't carry guns.

>, and non-gang-members who carry guns are less likely to be
> shot than non-gang-members who don't carry guns; but gang members are
> much more likely to be shot in general, and are also much more likely
> to carry guns) you might see a different result.
>
> The question is whether you want to look at statistics, or at cause
> and effect. The latter is useful for deciding on behavior.

The cause-and-effect factor that we keep hearing about is this: if you
draw a gun, you give your opponent a motivation for shooting you. That's
assuming that both are carrying a gun. Another common scenario, I'm
told, is where someone is carrying a weapon and a criminal takes it from
him and uses it. Certainly I've heard of some thought-provoking figures
on how many people are shot with their own guns.

--
Peter Moylan, Newcastle, NSW, Australia. http://www.pmoylan.org
For an e-mail address, see my web page.

[Peter Brooks]

On Oct 9, 12:47 pm, Peter Moylan <***@peter.pmoylan.org.invalid>
wrote:
>
>
> The cause-and-effect factor that we keep hearing about is this: if you
> draw a gun, you give your opponent a motivation for shooting you. That's
> assuming that both are carrying a gun. Another common scenario, I'm
> told, is where someone is carrying a weapon and a criminal takes it from
> him and uses it. Certainly I've heard of some thought-provoking figures
> on how many people are shot with their own guns.
>
It seems to be extremely common.

Presumably the responsible gun seller will advise his customers to
select a weapon with this in mind - be sure that you have one that
you'd be happiest being shot by.

[Bill Graham]

Peter Brooks wrote:
> On Oct 9, 12:47 pm, Peter Moylan <***@peter.pmoylan.org.invalid>
> wrote:
>>
>>
>> The cause-and-effect factor that we keep hearing about is this: if
>> you draw a gun, you give your opponent a motivation for shooting
>> you. That's assuming that both are carrying a gun. Another common
>> scenario, I'm told, is where someone is carrying a weapon and a
>> criminal takes it from him and uses it. Certainly I've heard of some
>> thought-provoking figures on how many people are shot with their own
>> guns.
>>
> It seems to be extremely common.
>
> Presumably the responsible gun seller will advise his customers to
> select a weapon with this in mind - be sure that you have one that
> you'd be happiest being shot by.

A lot of people carry them without knowing how, and without getting any
instruction. That's why I push an essay I have on the subject. If, for
example a woman carries on in her purse, It is likely the purse will get
snatched and she will lose the gun along with everything else. so, a purse
is decidedly not the place to keep ones gun. You should keep it in your
outside coat pocket and form the habit of keeping your hand in that pocket
and on the but of the gun at all times. - My essay outlines this quite
well.....

[Bill Graham]

Peter Moylan wrote:
> Skitt wrote:
>
>> Carrying a weapon would not make me feel any safer.
>
> The statistics seem to support that belief. The last time I checked,
> people who carried guns were more likely to be shot.
>
> There's also a flow-on effect. When the Australian police decided -
> rather stupidly, in my opinion - to start carrying guns, a few
> criminals followed their lead.

In Australia perhaps. but here in the US, the statistics most certainly do
not support that belief. ASAMOF, cities here that allow gun ownership have
less crime that those that do not. Compare Phoenix AZ, with New Your City,
for example.

[Robert Bannister]

On 10/10/11 6:58 AM, Bill Graham wrote:
> Peter Moylan wrote:
>> Skitt wrote:
>>
>>> Carrying a weapon would not make me feel any safer.
>>
>> The statistics seem to support that belief. The last time I checked,
>> people who carried guns were more likely to be shot.
>>
>> There's also a flow-on effect. When the Australian police decided -
>> rather stupidly, in my opinion - to start carrying guns, a few
>> criminals followed their lead.
>
> In Australia perhaps. but here in the US, the statistics most certainly
> do not support that belief. ASAMOF, cities here that allow gun ownership
> have less crime that those that do not. Compare Phoenix AZ, with New
> Your City, for example.

I can think of a lot of reasons why NYC would have more crime than Phoenix.

--
Robert Bannister

[Rich Ulrich]

On Mon, 10 Oct 2011 09:11:16 +0800, Robert Bannister
<***@bigpond.com> wrote:

>On 10/10/11 6:58 AM, Bill Graham wrote:
>> Peter Moylan wrote:
>>> Skitt wrote:
>>>
>>>> Carrying a weapon would not make me feel any safer.
>>>
>>> The statistics seem to support that belief. The last time I checked,
>>> people who carried guns were more likely to be shot.
>>>
>>> There's also a flow-on effect. When the Australian police decided -
>>> rather stupidly, in my opinion - to start carrying guns, a few
>>> criminals followed their lead.
>>
>> In Australia perhaps. but here in the US, the statistics most certainly
>> do not support that belief.

Oh, I've seen them argued that way, somewhat persuasively...

>> ASAMOF, cities here that allow gun ownership
>> have less crime that those that do not. Compare Phoenix AZ, with New
>> Your City, for example.

... and that is nothing short of silly.
>
>I can think of a lot of reasons why NYC would have more crime than Phoenix.

Right. Social traditions account for crime. Extremely.

This reminds me of a news story from when the Olympics were
held in Korea: Some Americans stole a small statue from outside
of a restaurant "as a prank." The Koreans - Korean people of'
all walks of life, reportedly - were appalled at this casual,
casual disrespect for private property. And they were further
appalled that Americans were not appalled at this behavior.

And that reminds me further of reading a travelogue about
China, where the hotel guest left his cheap cigarette lighter
at the hotel restaurant table in the evening. It was on his
breakfast table the next morning. This was mentioned, IIRC,
as evidence of honesty among the Chinese.

I suspect that gun-carrying may be near non-existent for
both those populations.

Social traditions account for crime.

The slave tradition of the U.S. from 1620 to 1865 left a terrible
society for the blacks, and left a bad legacy for southern whites
as well. It wasn't blacks who were lynching whites, with a blind
eye from law enforcement until after WWII.

And southern blacks migrated to northern cities looking for jobs,
still lacking much experience with actual "justice" or a society
of non-violence. The literature suggests that they brought with
them some of their crime rates, which we are still dealing with.


I don't mind the thought of some *particular* people being armed.
Those are the ones who are as sober and and sensible as my
sister's father-in-law -- he carried a gun on his hip as a uniformed
deputy sheriff. (I don't know or worry about the times out of
uniform.) But please, weed out the belligerent fat-heads.

--
Rich Ulrich

[Peter Brooks]

On Oct 10, 9:39 am, Rich Ulrich <***@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> I don't mind the thought of some *particular* people being armed.
> Those are the ones who are as sober and and sensible as my
> sister's father-in-law -- he carried a gun on his hip as a uniformed  
> deputy sheriff.  (I don't know or worry about the times out of
> uniform.)  But please, weed out the belligerent fat-heads.
>
There people, I believe, are also more likely to die from gunshots,
which are quite likely to be from their own gun, than those who don't
own, or carry, guns.

I don't think that there's a process in place anywhere that manages to
exclude 'belligerent fat-heads' from the Police.

[Robert Bannister]

On 8/10/11 8:31 AM, Skitt wrote:
> Robert Bannister wrote:
>> Bill Graham wrote:
>>> David Hatunen wrote:
>>>> Bill Graham wrote:
>
>>>>> As a matter of fact, it is because of me and people lkke me that
>>>>> the Japanese didn't follow up Pearl with a continental US landing in
>>>>> 1941.
>>>>
>>>> Do you really believe that?
>>>>
>>>> They sure would have had a lot harder time sneaking up on us with a
>>>> full landing force at sea and not just their aircraft carriers.
>>>
>>> I believe it because the Japanese admiral said it after the war was
>>> over. Whether or not our handguns would have made any significant
>>> difference, we will never know. But the Japanese thought they would
>>> have. I also know that I have carried a handgun in my pocket most of my
>>> adult life, and I have never been afraid to go anywhere I wanted to go
>>> during all of that time. My dad used to say that nothing gives a man
>>> confidence like money in the bank. I say that's true, but having a
>>> pistol in your pocket plus money in the bank is very hard to beat.
>>
>> I have never carried a gun, but I don't recall being afraid of going
>> wherever I wanted. You must live in a dangerous place.
>>
>
> There are several neighborhoods I would not set foot in around here,
> especially after dark. Those neighborhoods are in San Francisco,
> Oakland, Richmond, and a few other smaller cities. Someone gets killed
> in the SF Bay Area daily, and sometimes it is just an innocent
> bystander. The rest of the time it is gang warfare, a robbery gone
> wrong, or a disgruntled employee going postal. There was one of the
> latter just a couple of days ago, killing several people and wounding
> some others.
>
> A couple of weeks ago a man got killed and a woman injured within a
> block of our house, although we live in a generally safe area. It
> appeared to be a targeted attack on a gold dealer and his wife as they
> were leaving their house for work.
>
> Carrying a weapon would not make me feel any safer. Just today there was
> a shootout between the police and someone who managed to grab a gun from
> a policeman. I haven't caught the full story on the news yet.
>
I imagine pulling out a gun in the middle of gang warfare, a robbery or
a mentally disturbed shoot-out would only make things worse, and, with
the police around, could make it even easier for you to get shot, so I
agree.

--
Robert Bannister

[Bill Graham]

Skitt wrote:
> Robert Bannister wrote:
>> Bill Graham wrote:
>>> David Hatunen wrote:
>>>> Bill Graham wrote:
>
>>>>> As a matter of fact, it is because of me and people lkke me that
>>>>> the Japanese didn't follow up Pearl with a continental US landing
>>>>> in 1941.
>>>>
>>>> Do you really believe that?
>>>>
>>>> They sure would have had a lot harder time sneaking up on us with a
>>>> full landing force at sea and not just their aircraft carriers.
>>>
>>> I believe it because the Japanese admiral said it after the war was
>>> over. Whether or not our handguns would have made any significant
>>> difference, we will never know. But the Japanese thought they would
>>> have. I also know that I have carried a handgun in my pocket most
>>> of my adult life, and I have never been afraid to go anywhere I
>>> wanted to go during all of that time. My dad used to say that
>>> nothing gives a man confidence like money in the bank. I say that's
>>> true, but having a pistol in your pocket plus money in the bank is
>>> very hard to beat.
>>
>> I have never carried a gun, but I don't recall being afraid of going
>> wherever I wanted. You must live in a dangerous place.
>>
>
> There are several neighborhoods I would not set foot in around here,
> especially after dark. Those neighborhoods are in San Francisco,
> Oakland, Richmond, and a few other smaller cities. Someone gets
> killed in the SF Bay Area daily, and sometimes it is just an innocent
> bystander. The rest of the time it is gang warfare, a robbery gone
> wrong, or a disgruntled employee going postal. There was one of the
> latter just a couple of days ago, killing several people and wounding
> some others.
>
> A couple of weeks ago a man got killed and a woman injured within a
> block of our house, although we live in a generally safe area. It
> appeared to be a targeted attack on a gold dealer and his wife as they
> were leaving their house for work.
>
> Carrying a weapon would not make me feel any safer. Just today there
> was a shootout between the police and someone who managed to grab a
> gun from a policeman. I haven't caught the full story on the news
> yet.

The chief mistake in the logic of anti-gunners is believing that the police
prevent crime. This isw false. The police are quite good at hunting dow2n
aned apprehending criminals after the fact, but they certqinly do not
prevent crime. There ar3n't near enough fo them for that. When a crime is
committed, there are usually only two people there. The perpetrator and the
victom. The police are usually far away. If they weren't, then no crime
would happen. If you want to prevent crimes from happening to you and others
who are near you, then you'd better plan on doing it yourself. To expect the
police to do it is very unrealistic. Get a gun, and learn how to use it. If
you would like to read a good essay on the subject, then send me a valid
email address, and I will send it to you. My email address is valid as it
stands, so you can email me off list anytime.

[Skitt]

Bill Graham wrote:

> The chief mistake in the logic of anti-gunners is believing that the
> police prevent crime. This isw false. The police are quite good at
> hunting dow2n aned apprehending criminals after the fact, but they
> certqinly do not prevent crime. There ar3n't near enough fo them for
> that. When a crime is committed, there are usually only two people
> there. The perpetrator and the victom. The police are usually far away.
> If they weren't, then no crime would happen. If you want to prevent
> crimes from happening to you and others who are near you, then you'd
> better plan on doing it yourself. To expect the police to do it is very
> unrealistic. Get a gun, and learn how to use it. If you would like to
> read a good essay on the subject, then send me a valid email address,
> and I will send it to you. My email address is valid as it stands, so
> you can email me off list anytime.

I appreciate your kind offer, but I'll decline it for now. I've
survived for almost 79 years so far, and I'm pretty sure that I will not
die at the hands of a criminal.
--
Skitt (SF Bay Area)
http://come.to/skitt

[Bill Graham]

Skitt wrote:
> Bill Graham wrote:
>
>> The chief mistake in the logic of anti-gunners is believing that the
>> police prevent crime. This isw false. The police are quite good at
>> hunting dow2n aned apprehending criminals after the fact, but they
>> certqinly do not prevent crime. There ar3n't near enough fo them for
>> that. When a crime is committed, there are usually only two people
>> there. The perpetrator and the victom. The police are usually far
>> away. If they weren't, then no crime would happen. If you want to
>> prevent crimes from happening to you and others who are near you,
>> then you'd better plan on doing it yourself. To expect the police to
>> do it is very unrealistic. Get a gun, and learn how to use it. If
>> you would like to read a good essay on the subject, then send me a
>> valid email address, and I will send it to you. My email address is
>> valid as it stands, so you can email me off list anytime.
>
> I appreciate your kind offer, but I'll decline it for now. I've
> survived for almost 79 years so far, and I'm pretty sure that I will
> not die at the hands of a criminal.

Too bad.... I am only 76, but I think being shot to death by a criminal
would be a nice way to go. I will probably end up dying by inches in a
hospital bed somewhere.

[Peter Moylan]

Bill Graham wrote:
> Skitt wrote:
>> Bill Graham wrote:
>>
>>> The chief mistake in the logic of anti-gunners is believing that the
>>> police prevent crime. This isw false. The police are quite good at
>>> hunting dow2n aned apprehending criminals after the fact, but they
>>> certqinly do not prevent crime. There ar3n't near enough fo them for
>>> that. When a crime is committed, there are usually only two people
>>> there. The perpetrator and the victom. The police are usually far
>>> away. If they weren't, then no crime would happen. If you want to
>>> prevent crimes from happening to you and others who are near you,
>>> then you'd better plan on doing it yourself. To expect the police to
>>> do it is very unrealistic. Get a gun, and learn how to use it. If
>>> you would like to read a good essay on the subject, then send me a
>>> valid email address, and I will send it to you. My email address is
>>> valid as it stands, so you can email me off list anytime.
>>
>> I appreciate your kind offer, but I'll decline it for now. I've
>> survived for almost 79 years so far, and I'm pretty sure that I will
>> not die at the hands of a criminal.
>
> Too bad.... I am only 76, but I think being shot to death by a criminal
> would be a nice way to go. I will probably end up dying by inches in a
> hospital bed somewhere.

I used to have a preference for being shot dead by a jealous husband.

--
Peter Moylan, Newcastle, NSW, Australia. http://www.pmoylan.org
For an e-mail address, see my web page.

[the Omrud]

On 10/10/2011 13:12, Peter Moylan wrote:
> Bill Graham wrote:
>> Skitt wrote:
>>
>>> I appreciate your kind offer, but I'll decline it for now. I've
>>> survived for almost 79 years so far, and I'm pretty sure that I will
>>> not die at the hands of a criminal.
>>
>> Too bad.... I am only 76, but I think being shot to death by a criminal
>> would be a nice way to go. I will probably end up dying by inches in a
>> hospital bed somewhere.
>
> I used to have a preference for being shot dead by a jealous husband.

At the age of 98, on your yacht?

--
David

[MC]

In article <YuBkq.4414$***@newsfe03.ams2>,
the Omrud <***@gmail.com> wrote:

> On 10/10/2011 13:12, Peter Moylan wrote:
> > Bill Graham wrote:
> >> Skitt wrote:
> >>
> >>> I appreciate your kind offer, but I'll decline it for now. I've
> >>> survived for almost 79 years so far, and I'm pretty sure that I will
> >>> not die at the hands of a criminal.
> >>
> >> Too bad.... I am only 76, but I think being shot to death by a criminal
> >> would be a nice way to go. I will probably end up dying by inches in a
> >> hospital bed somewhere.
> >
> > I used to have a preference for being shot dead by a jealous husband.
>
> At the age of 98, on your yacht?

Walter Cronkite's wife once said, "Walter dreams of dying on a 98-foot
yacht in the arms of an 18-year-old. It'll be the other way around."

+++

Let Me Die A Youngman's Death - Roger McGough


Let me die a youngman's death
not a clean and inbetween
the sheets holywater death
not a famous-last-words
peaceful out of breath death

When I'm 73
and in constant good tumour
may I be mown down at dawn
by a bright red sports car
on my way home
from an allnight party

Or when I'm 91
with silver hair
and sitting in a barber's chair
may rival gangsters
with hamfisted tommyguns burst in
and give me a short back and insides

Or when I'm 104
and banned from the Cavern
may my mistress
catching me in bed with her daughter
and fearing for her son
cut me up into little pieces
and throw away every piece but one

Let me die a youngman's death
not a free from sin tiptoe in
candle wax and waning death
not a curtains drawn by angels borne
'what a nice way to go' death

--

"If you can, tell me something happy."
- Marybones

[Bill Graham]

Robert Bannister wrote:
> On 7/10/11 9:15 AM, Bill Graham wrote:
>> David Hatunen wrote:
>>> On Thu, 29 Sep 2011 18:39:50 -0700, Bill Graham wrote:
>>>
>>>> As a matter of fact, it is because of me and people lkke me that
>>>> the Japanese didn't follow up Pearl with a continental US landing
>>>> in 1941.
>>>
>>> Do you really believe that?
>>>
>>> They sure would have had a lot harder time sneaking up on us with a
>>> full landing force at sea and not just their aircraft carriers.
>>
>> I believe it because the Japanese admiral said it after the war was
>> over. Whether or not our handguns would have made any significant
>> difference, we will never know. But the Japanese thought they would
>> have. I also know that I have carried a handgun in my pocket most of
>> my adult life, and I have never been afraid to go anywhere I wanted
>> to go during all of that time. My dad used to say that nothing gives
>> a man confidence like money in the bank. I say that's true, but
>> having a pistol in your pocket plus money in the bank is very hard
>> to beat.
>
> I have never carried a gun, but I don't recall being afraid of going
> wherever I wanted. You must live in a dangerous place.

Right now, I live in a very safe place, where the crime rate is effectively
zero. (I like to say it is negative, because somebody left a stolen car
parked on our block a couple of years ago...:^) But I have lived in some
large cities in the past where it was certinly not prudent to wander around
without some protection, especially after dark. Not only that, but when I
went to Europe, I carried a handgun with me all the time. Illegaly, of
course, but then I believe in breaking unenforceable laws, and laws against
whatever I am carrying in my pockets are unenforceable.... It turns out that
all of the places where I went in Europe were safer than the big cities here
in the US, so my carrying was just an exercise in avoiding the law against
carrying......

[Roy]

On 9/29/2011 6:39 PM, Bill Graham wrote:
>
>
> Yes. I would love to have a tank/howitzer available to me in the event
> that we are attacked by a foreign power. but they are not only
> expensive, but they take up a lot of room, and my garage an barely
> handle the two cars I currently own. so, I make do with was cople of
> pistols and a good hunting rifle, plus several boxes of ammnition for
> all three. That was te original purpose of the second amendment, I
> believe, and I see no reason to discard it. That purpose is still very
> viable. As a matter of fact, it is because of me and people lkke me that
> the Japanese didn't follow up Pearl with a continental US landing in 1941.

I suspect much more important factors played a role. They would have
been at the end of a very long 5000 mile supply line with several active
US bases along it. They wouldn't have had any air superiority because
of the availability of US land based planes. The number of undefended
landing areas on the West Coast with easy access inland could probably
counted on the fingers of one hand and have a few fingers left over.

[Snidely]

Roy <***@aa4re.ampr.org> scribbled something like ...

> On 9/29/2011 6:39 PM, Bill Graham wrote:
>>
>>
>> Yes. I would love to have a tank/howitzer available to me in the
>> event that we are attacked by a foreign power. but they are not only
>> expensive, but they take up a lot of room, and my garage an barely
>> handle the two cars I currently own. so, I make do with was cople of
>> pistols and a good hunting rifle, plus several boxes of ammnition for
>> all three. That was te original purpose of the second amendment, I
>> believe, and I see no reason to discard it. That purpose is still
>> very viable. As a matter of fact, it is because of me and people lkke
>> me that the Japanese didn't follow up Pearl with a continental US
>> landing in 1941.
>
> I suspect much more important factors played a role. They would have
> been at the end of a very long 5000 mile supply line with several
> active US bases along it. They wouldn't have had any air superiority
> because of the availability of US land based planes. The number of
> undefended landing areas on the West Coast with easy access inland
> could probably counted on the fingers of one hand and have a few
> fingers left over.


See also the Aleutian campaign.

/dps

[Bill Graham]

Roy wrote:
> On 9/29/2011 6:39 PM, Bill Graham wrote:
>>
>>
>> Yes. I would love to have a tank/howitzer available to me in the
>> event that we are attacked by a foreign power. but they are not only
>> expensive, but they take up a lot of room, and my garage an barely
>> handle the two cars I currently own. so, I make do with was cople of
>> pistols and a good hunting rifle, plus several boxes of ammnition for
>> all three. That was te original purpose of the second amendment, I
>> believe, and I see no reason to discard it. That purpose is still
>> very viable. As a matter of fact, it is because of me and people
>> lkke me that the Japanese didn't follow up Pearl with a continental
>> US landing in 1941.
>
> I suspect much more important factors played a role. They would have
> been at the end of a very long 5000 mile supply line with several
> active US bases along it. They wouldn't have had any air superiority
> because of the availability of US land based planes. The number of
> undefended landing areas on the West Coast with easy access inland
> could probably counted on the fingers of one hand and have a few
> fingers left over.

Yes. The Japanese Admiral didn't say that the US citizens owenership of
handguns was the only reason why they didn't continue on to land in the US.
It was only one of several things he mentioned. Of course, had they
intend3ed to continue on and land on the continental US, they would have
undergone much different preparations prior to their attack on Pearl.

[Peter Brooks]

On Sep 29, 10:49 pm, David Hatunen <***@cox.net> wrote:
> On Thu, 29 Sep 2011 00:28:41 -0700, Peter Brooks wrote:
> > I've never understood why people think it sensible to keep guns in their
> > houses, there are quite enough deadly weapons to fuel domestic disputes
> > without them. On the other hand, if they are serious about their
> > domestics, why do so few keep howitzers and tanks in the garden? Mere
> > handguns seem rather pathetic compared to the possibilities available at
> > your local arms dealer.
>
> Howitzers are expensive (and are designed to loft shells in a high
> trajectory; the call for personal weapons useful to lob shells into the
> next neighborhood is minimal) and tanks are both expensive and hard to
> store. And are lousy for fuel economy.
>
Yes, I know all that. A shoulder RPG launcher, bazooka or a garden
tractor mounted heavy machine-gun would overcome those objections,
mainly, and would be much more satisfying than hand guns - don't you
think?

[Jared]

On 9/30/2011 12:26 AM, Peter Brooks wrote:
> On Sep 29, 10:49 pm, David Hatunen<***@cox.net> wrote:
>> On Thu, 29 Sep 2011 00:28:41 -0700, Peter Brooks wrote:
>>> I've never understood why people think it sensible to keep guns in their
>>> houses, there are quite enough deadly weapons to fuel domestic disputes
>>> without them. On the other hand, if they are serious about their
>>> domestics, why do so few keep howitzers and tanks in the garden? Mere
>>> handguns seem rather pathetic compared to the possibilities available at
>>> your local arms dealer.
>>
>> Howitzers are expensive (and are designed to loft shells in a high
>> trajectory; the call for personal weapons useful to lob shells into the
>> next neighborhood is minimal) and tanks are both expensive and hard to
>> store. And are lousy for fuel economy.
>>
> Yes, I know all that. A shoulder RPG launcher, bazooka or a garden
> tractor mounted heavy machine-gun would overcome those objections,
> mainly, and would be much more satisfying than hand guns - don't you
> think?

Expensive, and there's a lack of armored targets that require heavy weapons.

--
Jared

[Peter Duncanson (BrE)]

On Fri, 30 Sep 2011 00:57:39 -0400, Jared <***@gmail.com> wrote:

>On 9/30/2011 12:26 AM, Peter Brooks wrote:
>> On Sep 29, 10:49 pm, David Hatunen<***@cox.net> wrote:
>>> On Thu, 29 Sep 2011 00:28:41 -0700, Peter Brooks wrote:
>>>> I've never understood why people think it sensible to keep guns in their
>>>> houses, there are quite enough deadly weapons to fuel domestic disputes
>>>> without them. On the other hand, if they are serious about their
>>>> domestics, why do so few keep howitzers and tanks in the garden? Mere
>>>> handguns seem rather pathetic compared to the possibilities available at
>>>> your local arms dealer.
>>>
>>> Howitzers are expensive (and are designed to loft shells in a high
>>> trajectory; the call for personal weapons useful to lob shells into the
>>> next neighborhood is minimal) and tanks are both expensive and hard to
>>> store. And are lousy for fuel economy.
>>>
>> Yes, I know all that. A shoulder RPG launcher, bazooka or a garden
>> tractor mounted heavy machine-gun would overcome those objections,
>> mainly, and would be much more satisfying than hand guns - don't you
>> think?
>
>Expensive, and there's a lack of armored targets that require heavy weapons.

A small nuke would be even more satisfying although it would need a
means to deliver it over a sufficient distance from the sender.

--
Peter Duncanson, UK
(in alt.usage.english)

[Gordon Burditt]

>>> Yes, I know all that. A shoulder RPG launcher, bazooka or a garden
>>> tractor mounted heavy machine-gun would overcome those objections,
>>> mainly, and would be much more satisfying than hand guns - don't you
>>> think?
>>
>>Expensive, and there's a lack of armored targets that require heavy weapons.
>
> A small nuke would be even more satisfying although it would need a
> means to deliver it over a sufficient distance from the sender.

I suspect that in one of the situations where there is the most
demand for small nuclear weapons, domestic disputes, the target is
not a sufficient distance from the sender. How, exactly, do you
surprise your wife with the neighbor having "fun" in YOUR bed with
a small nuclear weapon?

For targets that are a sufficient distance away, I recommend UPS.
USPS has a higher chance of losing it close to you.

How, exactly, does the US government protect against really obvious
attacks on the President, Congress, the Pentagon, or whoever from
packages dropped in the mail from, say, Pakistan with a return
address of:

Bin Laden's Second in Command of the Day
The Cave
31 Death to America Avenue
Somewhere, Pakistan

and containing Weapons of Mass Destruction, or even just Beans
(Weapons of Ass Destruction). Do they read all the return addresses?

[David Hatunen]

On Fri, 30 Sep 2011 14:46:18 +0100, Peter Duncanson (BrE) wrote:

> On Fri, 30 Sep 2011 00:57:39 -0400, Jared <***@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>On 9/30/2011 12:26 AM, Peter Brooks wrote:
>>> On Sep 29, 10:49 pm, David Hatunen<***@cox.net> wrote:
>>>> On Thu, 29 Sep 2011 00:28:41 -0700, Peter Brooks wrote:
>>>>> I've never understood why people think it sensible to keep guns in
>>>>> their houses, there are quite enough deadly weapons to fuel domestic
>>>>> disputes without them. On the other hand, if they are serious about
>>>>> their domestics, why do so few keep howitzers and tanks in the
>>>>> garden? Mere handguns seem rather pathetic compared to the
>>>>> possibilities available at your local arms dealer.
>>>>
>>>> Howitzers are expensive (and are designed to loft shells in a high
>>>> trajectory; the call for personal weapons useful to lob shells into
>>>> the next neighborhood is minimal) and tanks are both expensive and
>>>> hard to store. And are lousy for fuel economy.
>>>>
>>> Yes, I know all that. A shoulder RPG launcher, bazooka or a garden
>>> tractor mounted heavy machine-gun would overcome those objections,
>>> mainly, and would be much more satisfying than hand guns - don't you
>>> think?
>>
>>Expensive, and there's a lack of armored targets that require heavy
>>weapons.
>
> A small nuke would be even more satisfying although it would need a
> means to deliver it over a sufficient distance from the sender.

Are you familiar with the Davey Crockett missile?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Davy_Crockett_%28nuclear_device%29

I once had guard duty over Davey Crocketts (no nuke warhead, though) when
I was at Fort Knox.

--
Dave Hatunen: Free Baja Arizona

[Peter Duncanson (BrE)]

On Tue, 4 Oct 2011 23:13:50 +0000 (UTC), David Hatunen
<***@cox.net> wrote:

>On Fri, 30 Sep 2011 14:46:18 +0100, Peter Duncanson (BrE) wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 30 Sep 2011 00:57:39 -0400, Jared <***@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>On 9/30/2011 12:26 AM, Peter Brooks wrote:
>>>> On Sep 29, 10:49 pm, David Hatunen<***@cox.net> wrote:
>>>>> On Thu, 29 Sep 2011 00:28:41 -0700, Peter Brooks wrote:
>>>>>> I've never understood why people think it sensible to keep guns in
>>>>>> their houses, there are quite enough deadly weapons to fuel domestic
>>>>>> disputes without them. On the other hand, if they are serious about
>>>>>> their domestics, why do so few keep howitzers and tanks in the
>>>>>> garden? Mere handguns seem rather pathetic compared to the
>>>>>> possibilities available at your local arms dealer.
>>>>>
>>>>> Howitzers are expensive (and are designed to loft shells in a high
>>>>> trajectory; the call for personal weapons useful to lob shells into
>>>>> the next neighborhood is minimal) and tanks are both expensive and
>>>>> hard to store. And are lousy for fuel economy.
>>>>>
>>>> Yes, I know all that. A shoulder RPG launcher, bazooka or a garden
>>>> tractor mounted heavy machine-gun would overcome those objections,
>>>> mainly, and would be much more satisfying than hand guns - don't you
>>>> think?
>>>
>>>Expensive, and there's a lack of armored targets that require heavy
>>>weapons.
>>
>> A small nuke would be even more satisfying although it would need a
>> means to deliver it over a sufficient distance from the sender.
>
>Are you familiar with the Davey Crockett missile?
>
I think I might have heard the name, but thst's all.

>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Davy_Crockett_%28nuclear_device%29
>
>I once had guard duty over Davey Crocketts (no nuke warhead, though) when
>I was at Fort Knox.

--
Peter Duncanson, UK
(in alt.usage.english)

[pensive hamster]

On Sep 29, 9:49 pm, David Hatunen <***@cox.net> wrote:
>
> Howitzers are expensive (and are designed to loft shells in a high
> trajectory; the call for personal weapons useful to lob shells into the
> next neighborhood is minimal) and tanks are both expensive and hard to
> store. And are lousy for fuel economy.
>

But parking is so much easier.

[Bill Graham]

pensive hamster wrote:
> On Sep 29, 9:49 pm, David Hatunen <***@cox.net> wrote:
>>
>> Howitzers are expensive (and are designed to loft shells in a high
>> trajectory; the call for personal weapons useful to lob shells into
>> the next neighborhood is minimal) and tanks are both expensive and
>> hard to store. And are lousy for fuel economy.
>>
>
> But parking is so much easier.

Yes. If they don't fit in your garage, you can park them in there
anyway.....

[David Hatunen]

On Sat, 01 Oct 2011 15:48:42 -0700, Bill Graham wrote:

> pensive hamster wrote:
>> On Sep 29, 9:49 pm, David Hatunen <***@cox.net> wrote:
>>>
>>> Howitzers are expensive (and are designed to loft shells in a high
>>> trajectory; the call for personal weapons useful to lob shells into
>>> the next neighborhood is minimal) and tanks are both expensive and
>>> hard to store. And are lousy for fuel economy.
>>>
>>>
>> But parking is so much easier.
>
> Yes. If they don't fit in your garage, you can park them in there
> anyway.....

or you can always make room on the street.

--
Dave Hatunen: Free Baja Arizona

[Peter Moylan]

Peter Brooks wrote:
> On Sep 29, 2:42 am, Peter Moylan <***@peter.pmoylan.org.invalid>
> wrote:
>> tony cooper wrote:
>>> A murder case was just decided this week here in Orlando. The accused
>>> claimed his wife attempted suicide and the gun went off when he
>>> struggled to take it from her.
>>> During deliberations, the jury requested that they be able to examine
>>> the gun. The request was granted, and the jurors each dry-fired the
>>> gun decided that the pull required to fire the gun was more than they
>>> would have expected in a struggle as described. The verdict was
>>> guilty of second-degree murder.
>> That's not a fair test; you use much greater strength while struggling.
>> What they should have done is have two jurors struggling to get
>> possession of the gun.
>>
> While, of course, properly drunk and fired up with crack cocaine.

Of course, you'd be one juror short at the end of the test.

I've never looked up what happens if a juror dies in the course of a
trial. I supposed they'd continue with the remaining eleven.

--
Peter Moylan, Newcastle, NSW, Australia. http://www.pmoylan.org
For an e-mail address, see my web page.

[Lewis]

In message <tumdnR8MVtO55xnTnZ2dnUVZ8o-***@westnet.com.au>
Peter Moylan <***@peter.pmoylan.org.invalid> wrote:

> I've never looked up what happens if a juror dies in the course of a
> trial. I supposed they'd continue with the remaining eleven.

If it's before deliberations begin, you use an alternate. After
deliberations begin you have a mistrial.

--
Today the road all runners come/Shoulder high we bring you home. And
set you at your threshold down/Townsman of a stiller town.
There are strange things done in the midnight sun/By the men who moil
for gold; The Arctic trails have their secret tales/That would make you
blood run cold; The Northern Lights have seen queer sights,/But the
queerest they ever did see Was the night on the marge of Lake Lebarge/
When I cremated Sam McGee

[Roy]

On 9/29/2011 7:15 AM, Lewis wrote:
> In message<tumdnR8MVtO55xnTnZ2dnUVZ8o-***@westnet.com.au>
> Peter Moylan<***@peter.pmoylan.org.invalid> wrote:
>
>> I've never looked up what happens if a juror dies in the course of a
>> trial. I supposed they'd continue with the remaining eleven.
>
> If it's before deliberations begin, you use an alternate. After
> deliberations begin you have a mistrial.
>

In criminal cases, the judge can seat an alternate and order
deliberations to restart (not resume). This also depends on the state.

In many states, the parties can agree to allow a civil trial to proceed.
Also a civil trial may not need a unanimous verdict.

[Skitt]

Roy wrote:
> Lewis wrote:
>> Peter Moylan wrote:

>>> I've never looked up what happens if a juror dies in the course of a
>>> trial. I supposed they'd continue with the remaining eleven.
>>
>> If it's before deliberations begin, you use an alternate. After
>> deliberations begin you have a mistrial.
>
> In criminal cases, the judge can seat an alternate and order
> deliberations to restart (not resume). This also depends on the state.
>
> In many states, the parties can agree to allow a civil trial to proceed.
> Also a civil trial may not need a unanimous verdict.

I was an alternate in a California civil trial. I'm sure that I was
there to take over for any juror unable to continue with the process.
As it turned out, I didn't find that out for certain, as the parties
settled just before the deliberations began.

After all, what would be the reason for a couple of alternates (yes,
there were two) if they couldn't ensure the continuation of the process
if something befell a juror or two.

--
Skitt (SF Bay Area)
http://come.to/skitt

[David Hatunen]

On Thu, 29 Sep 2011 07:58:08 -0700, Roy wrote:

> In criminal cases, the judge can seat an alternate and order
> deliberations to restart (not resume). This also depends on the state.
>
> In many states, the parties can agree to allow a civil trial to proceed.
> Also a civil trial may not need a unanimous verdict.

I have trouble imagining a civil trial that would require a unanimous
verdict.

--
Dave Hatunen: Free Baja Arizona

[Mark Brader]

"Roy":
> > In many states, the parties can agree to allow a civil trial to proceed.
> > Also a civil trial may not need a unanimous verdict.

Dave Hatunen:
> I have trouble imagining a civil trial that would require a unanimous
> verdict.

Well, according to the table I posted previously, in about half the states
it does. Including Arizona. I don't know about Canada in this respect.
--
Mark Brader, Toronto "Sex on trains, of course."
***@vex.net -- Clive Feather

[David Hatunen]

On Thu, 29 Sep 2011 16:05:17 -0500, Mark Brader wrote:

> "Roy":
>> > In many states, the parties can agree to allow a civil trial to
>> > proceed. Also a civil trial may not need a unanimous verdict.
>
> Dave Hatunen:
>> I have trouble imagining a civil trial that would require a unanimous
>> verdict.
>
> Well, according to the table I posted previously, in about half the
> states it does. Including Arizona. I don't know about Canada in this
> respect.

Every civil trial I've seen in Arizona has required only a majority of
the jury. Can you cite a code section for me?

--
Dave Hatunen: Free Baja Arizona

[Mark Brader]

"Roy":
>>> > In many states, the parties can agree to allow a civil trial to
>>> > proceed. Also a civil trial may not need a unanimous verdict.

Dave Hatunen:
>>> I have trouble imagining a civil trial that would require a unanimous
>>> verdict.

Mark Brader:
>> Well, according to the table I posted previously, in about half the
>> states it does. Including Arizona. I don't know about Canada in this
>> respect.

Dave Hatunen:
> Every civil trial I've seen in Arizona has required only a majority of
> the jury. Can you cite a code section for me?

I already cited a source, and if you had taken the trouble to check it,
you would see that I misread it in reference to Arizona. What it actually
says is that in superior court cases 3/4 of the 8 jurors must agree, and
in justice-of-the-peace cases, 5/6 of the 6. In other words, one juror
more than a simple majority is required.

I also failed to notice that in a considerable number of other states,
civil trials require a unanimous verdict in some levels of the court
system but not in others. My apologies for the errors,
--
Mark Brader, Toronto "More importantly, Mark is just plain wrong."
***@vex.net -- John Hollingsworth

My text in this article is in the public domain.

[Mark Brader]

Peter Moylan:
> > I've never looked up what happens if a juror dies in the course of a
> > trial. I supposed they'd continue with the remaining eleven.

"Lewis":
> If it's before deliberations begin, you use an alternate. After
> deliberations begin you have a mistrial.

The Criminal Code says at s.644.(2):

# Where in the course of a trial a member of the jury dies or
# is discharged pursuant to subsection (1), the jury shall,
# unless the judge otherwise directs and if the number
# of jurors is not reduced below ten, be deemed to remain
# properly constituted for all purposes of the trial and the
# trial shall proceed and a verdict may be given accordingly.

And:

# Lorsque, au cours d'un procès, un membre du juré décède ou
# est libéré au titre du paragraphe (1), le jury est considéré,
# à toutes les fins du procès, comme demeurant régulièrement
# constitué, à moins que le juge n'en ordonne autrement et
# à condition que le nombre des jurés ne soit pas réduit à
# moins de dix; le procès se continuera et un verdict pourra
# être rendu en conséquence.

<http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/C-46/page-310.html>
<http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/fra/lois/C-46/page-310.html>

Your jurisdiction may vary. The original thread was about California,
which has certainly been known to vary. :-)
--
Mark Brader | "'Settlor', (i) in relation to a testamentary trust,
Toronto | means the individual referred to in paragraph (i)."
***@vex.net | -- Income Tax Act of Canada (1972-94), 108(1)(h)

My text in this article is in the public domain.

[David Hatunen]

On Thu, 29 Sep 2011 14:15:13 +0000, Lewis wrote:

> In message <tumdnR8MVtO55xnTnZ2dnUVZ8o-***@westnet.com.au>
> Peter Moylan <***@peter.pmoylan.org.invalid> wrote:
>
>> I've never looked up what happens if a juror dies in the course of a
>> trial. I supposed they'd continue with the remaining eleven.
>
> If it's before deliberations begin, you use an alternate. After
> deliberations begin you have a mistrial.

I believe alternates may sit in with the jury and so be up to speed if
called to replace a juror; no mistrial required.





--
Dave Hatunen: Free Baja Arizona

[Jonathan de Boyne Pollard]

> I believe alternates may sit in with the jury and so be up to speed if
> called to replace a juror; no mistrial required.

In California, substitute "must" for "may". See the aforementioned
section of the California Penal Code.

[Peter Brooks]

On Sep 29, 4:01 pm, Peter Moylan <***@peter.pmoylan.org.invalid>
wrote:
> Peter Brooks wrote:
> > On Sep 29, 2:42 am, Peter Moylan <***@peter.pmoylan.org.invalid>
> > wrote:
> >> tony cooper wrote:
> >>> A murder case was just decided this week here in Orlando.  The accused
> >>> claimed his wife attempted suicide and the gun went off when he
> >>> struggled to take it from her.
> >>> During deliberations, the jury requested that they be able to examine
> >>> the gun.  The request was granted, and the jurors each dry-fired the
> >>> gun decided that the pull required to fire the gun was more than they
> >>> would have expected in a struggle as described.  The verdict was
> >>> guilty of second-degree murder.
> >> That's not a fair test; you use much greater strength while struggling.
> >> What they should have done is have two jurors struggling to get
> >> possession of the gun.
>
> > While, of course, properly drunk and fired up with crack cocaine.
>
> Of course, you'd be one juror short at the end of the test.
>
Better be one juror short than have one short juror as an awaiting-
trial dwarf-thrower might opine.

The heading of this refers to jurors in California. In American sports
they think nothing of having reserves that get swapped in and out as
the game progresses (something that seems very peculiar to me) so,
similarly, they might have a reserve team of jurors that can be
drafted in when too many have died during evidence testing.
>
> I've never looked up what happens if a juror dies in the course of a
> trial. I supposed they'd continue with the remaining eleven.
>
Yes, I think so, there's a minimum that would force a re-trial. Each
morning, though, elevenses would feel more apt to the jury.

[Snidely]

Peter Brooks <***@gmail.com> scribbled something like ...


> The heading of this refers to jurors in California. In American sports
> they think nothing of having reserves that get swapped in and out as
> the game progresses (something that seems very peculiar to me) so,
> similarly, they might have a reserve team of jurors that can be
> drafted in when too many have died during evidence testing.

See posts elsewhere about alternate jurors. Some jury boxes have the extra
seats, and it looks like up until the deliberations start you do the same
thing as the non-alternate jurors. Oh, and I've read of trials where the
alternate got used because the person being replaced was disqualified (for
reading the newspaper, perhaps) rather than deceased.

Oh, and the sports stuff? Soccer teams follow the same limited
substitution rules as your footballers, so that shouldn't seem peculiar,
and in baseball you can't go back in once you've come out. The free
substitutions are in American Football, basketball, and hockey. And for
the latter, you can blame Canada instead of the US.

/dps

[Mark Brader]

"Snidely":
> Oh, and the sports stuff? Soccer teams follow the same limited
> substitution rules as your footballers, so that shouldn't seem peculiar,
> and in baseball you can't go back in once you've come out. The free
> substitutions are in American Football, basketball, and hockey. And for
> the latter, you can blame Canada instead of the US.

And then there's Canadian football, in which you have unlimited
substitutions *except* when a Designated Import enters the game.
I quote from <http://cfldb.ca/rulebook/scrimmage/player-restrictions/>:

# If a team is using its full complement of import players, it shall,
# prior to the game, designate three import players as special teams
# players, who shall be permitted to enter the game at another position,
# only on the understanding that another import player is required to
# leave the game for that play. Such player may enter the game on an
# unrestricted basis, only if another import player is removed for the
# balance of the game.

(As far as I can see from a quick look, "import" is not defined in
the rules, but it more or less means a player who played college
football outside Canada, i.e. in the US. "Special teams" is also
not defined, but it more or less means players who come on the field
when a kicking play is planned or expected.)

Followups directed to alt.usage.english.
--
Mark Brader, Toronto | "Common sense isn't any more common on Usenet
***@vex.net | than it is anywhere else." --Henry Spencer

My text in this article is in the public domain.

[tony cooper]

On Fri, 30 Sep 2011 00:01:08 +1000, Peter Moylan
<***@peter.pmoylan.org.invalid> wrote:

>Peter Brooks wrote:
>> On Sep 29, 2:42 am, Peter Moylan <***@peter.pmoylan.org.invalid>
>> wrote:
>>> tony cooper wrote:
>>>> A murder case was just decided this week here in Orlando. The accused
>>>> claimed his wife attempted suicide and the gun went off when he
>>>> struggled to take it from her.
>>>> During deliberations, the jury requested that they be able to examine
>>>> the gun. The request was granted, and the jurors each dry-fired the
>>>> gun decided that the pull required to fire the gun was more than they
>>>> would have expected in a struggle as described. The verdict was
>>>> guilty of second-degree murder.
>>> That's not a fair test; you use much greater strength while struggling.
>>> What they should have done is have two jurors struggling to get
>>> possession of the gun.
>>>
>> While, of course, properly drunk and fired up with crack cocaine.
>
>Of course, you'd be one juror short at the end of the test.
>
>I've never looked up what happens if a juror dies in the course of a
>trial. I supposed they'd continue with the remaining eleven.

Remaining five, in this particular murder trial. There were only six
jurors. Most criminal trials in Florida go with six jurors. I
believe most other states do the same.

The Supreme Court ruled in Williams v Florida (1970) that the Sixth
Amendment does not require a jury to have 12 members unless the charge
is first-degree murder. In this case, the charge was second-degree
murder.




--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida

[Mark Brader]

Tony Cooper:
> Most criminal trials in Florida go with six jurors.
> I believe most other states do the same.

Interesting; I never knew that. Always 12 here, as the law I posted
before would imply.

Here's a table (in PDF, from 2004):

http://contentdm.ncsconline.org/cgi-bin/showfile.exe?CISOROOT=/juries&CISOPTR=182

Looks like about 60% of states allow 6-member juries in some criminal
cases, and these would be the less serious and therefore the most
common ones, so Tony's right. However, about 90% of states require
12 members on the jury in all felony cases; so Florida is an exception
there.
--
Mark Brader | And the customary practice seems to be "FIRST,
Toronto | let the cat out of the bag; THEN inform you
***@vex.net | that there's a cat and a bag." --Daniel P.B. Smith

My text in this article is in the public domain.

[Glenn Knickerbocker]

On 09/29/2011 01:24 PM, Mark Brader wrote:
> Here's a table (in PDF, from 2004):
> http://contentdm.ncsconline.org/cgi-bin/showfile.exe?CISOROOT=/juries&CISOPTR=182

Hmmm, I would have said it was around 2004 that I was on a jury for a
New York Supreme Court civil trial that was 12 people and required a
unanimous verdict, where this table says 5 out of 6.

¬R

[Jonathan de Boyne Pollard]

> I've never looked up what happens if a juror dies in the course of a
> trial. I supposed they'd continue with the remaining eleven.

That was actually in the sections of the California Penal Code that I
just looked at. You want section 1089. The Code is available on the
WWW at http://leginfo.ca.gov./calaw.html .

[tony cooper]

On Thu, 29 Sep 2011 10:42:08 +1000, Peter Moylan
<***@peter.pmoylan.org.invalid> wrote:

>tony cooper wrote:
>
>> A murder case was just decided this week here in Orlando. The accused
>> claimed his wife attempted suicide and the gun went off when he
>> struggled to take it from her.
>>
>> During deliberations, the jury requested that they be able to examine
>> the gun. The request was granted, and the jurors each dry-fired the
>> gun decided that the pull required to fire the gun was more than they
>> would have expected in a struggle as described. The verdict was
>> guilty of second-degree murder.
>
>That's not a fair test; you use much greater strength while struggling.
>What they should have done is have two jurors struggling to get
>possession of the gun.

Perhaps they did do some sort of mock struggle. All I have to go on
is what was reported in the newspaper.

>
>> There was, of course, other evidence taken in to consideration. For
>> example, the shot was from 18" away. The jury also requested a
>> yardstick in the jury room so the jurors could hold the gun 18" away
>> from something. This request was refused by the judge because a
>> yardstick, unlike the gun, was not introduced in testimony.
>
>So an inch is undefined until introduced in testimony?

The inch wasn't refused, the tool was.


--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida

[Jonathan de Boyne Pollard]

>> I had a quick look at the California Penal Code. There's nothing
>> about jurors being permitted to ask questions. There's a lot about
>> admonishing them, though. Jurors can get admonished several times a
>> day under California law.
>
> They can ask questions once they've started to deliberate: [...]

That section does not, however, include the sorts of questions that M.
Snidely was asserting to be impermissible under California law.