Search results

I suppose you could make out a prima facie case to a particularly sympathetic judge. Will you be taking this to the Regina Court of Common Pleas?

"Illegal" according to what law?

OK, that's pretty much the tropics. Get a mite chilly in most of the "temperate zones."

What law does this "illegal" action violate? Do you have a citation?

Yep, classic state-sponsored terrorism. We do the same, but we call it "supporting freedom."

Technical point. . . those are "tropical zones." Up to 23 degrees from the equator. The "temperate zones" are those which experience the full seasonal cycle, from the tropics at about 23 North and south to the Arctic and Antarctic Circles.

What kind of sandwich did he throw at the cop?

That's state action, i.e., warfare, declared or undeclared. Was it "terrorism" when we bombed Berlin, pretty much randomly? How about when we lit up nukes over two "civilian" cities?

All comes down to facts. Was the crossbow loaded? If not, is a crossbow by itself a deadly weapon (as a bludgeon)? For me, the "child's bedroom at 3 am" is enough. Dust him. You should also consider that cops tend to over-charge, for various reasons. They can always reduce or drop the...

Part of the problem is that there is no generally agreed definition of "terrorism." I think a good-enough stab at it is "illegal violence by non-state actors against innocent civilians to coerce governments into political changes." The terrorism is "state-sponsored" if it is substantially...

Aaaand a caveat. . . I'm going with the English common law on this. Various jurisdictions with English common law-derived legal systems have, by legislation or precedents in their own courts, modified the doctrines in various ways.

Oh, right. I was going with the "war crimes" and "crimes against humanity" specified in the ICC warrant. As opposed to the "some asswit in Saskatchewan" charges. Let's see if I can pull it all together. How's this? "The International Criminal Court (ICC) has issued arrest warrants for...

Actually, "internationally wanted war criminals" would be more precise, but ain't that a touch nit-picky?

Also, generally, self-defence is a common-law concept that has been codified or not in various jurisdictions. Blackstone wrote "self-defence is a right that predates all positive law." The standard is that the accused must have reasonably believed that he was under a threat of imminent bodily...

By the way, down hereabouts at least the "breaking" in B&E is "any unauthorized action needed to gain access." People have been convicted of "breaking" that consisted of nothing but pushing open a door that was ajar.

15 kilotons nominal yield. 15,000 tons. Times six. I know for you that equals whatever bullshit you feel like putting on the internet, but to sane people it's 90,000.

I don't like the AR action. My rifle has the P90 action. I also have four handguns and my "fun gun," a carbine that's a pistol with an extended barrel and a folding stock in 5.7mm. It's my fun gun cuz the mag holds 50. I cut down a couple of years ago.

Depends on what happened inside, if anything. Robbery is "theft by force or threat of force." We don't know from what's presented above whether the burglar managed to get a threat or demand out before the owner clocked him. But I'd say his intent to commit a felony was pretty clear.

The B&E was light. Classically, that's burglary, which is "breaking and entering a building with the intent of committing a felony therein." It's a felony, where B&E is usually a misdemeanor.

The "castle doctrine" is a matter of state law, and varies from state to state. For example, in Maryland and many other states, one can only use deadly force in in-home self defense if no safe exit is possible. This is called the "duty to retreat." It's not as bad as it seems. Usually, if...