One possible reason "I feared fory life" is used is for courtroom theatrics?
Some bad "shoots" get acquitted because the defense team out played the prosecution. NOT because the shooting was justified.
Just an ugly fact of life.
Setting the stage for a show is standard practice, I guess?
But, just because a statement is made about fear, should not fog up the facts.

quote Originally posted by Rickady88GT: This copy paste is significant and comes from the link I posted. The SCOTUS made no mention of fear. Fear is not required for the use of deadly force, "belief" is required.

Fear IS the belief. You are making differences where none exist.

quote Originally posted by Hudini: Fear IS the belief. You are making differences where none exist.

No, I am pointing out that people are not required to say " I feared for my life" to defend themselves.
I am pointing out that the requirement set forth by the SCOTUS for the legal use of deadly force specifically states "belief" NOT fear. This is VERY significant because in court the person will have to prove that they were in danger and not that they were just scared.
The difference is like a person fearing global warming vs a person believing that the sun will come up in the morning. One testimony is easier to prove than the other.

There is no doubt in my mind that people fear death and dismemberment, so I don't hold it against them. I just don't believe that fear is the defense they use in court. It is just a factual statement about the situation. BUT the real questions asked in court are going to focus on what dId the dead person do to deserve to die? I don't think any court in America will accept "I was afraid of them" as a reason.

As I have said before, the courts have specific requirements that have to be met before a person can legally use deadly "lethal" force. AND that actually covers warning shots and missed shots in California BTW. To fire a warning shot the same requirements must be met. EVERY SINGLE shot fire has to be answered for.

Fear is the belief. As I pointed out earlier, what if a person never recalls being afraid? Is being afraid a requirement?

I posted my evidence in the form of the SCOTUS ruling, I asked that others submit legal requirements to state "fear" as a requirement? Have you any?

I'm saying fear of harm IS the belief. That's all. You are saying "belief" is the needed reason but are not saying belief in what. Belief in harm to ones self or others is the same as fear. "I feared for my life" is a simple packaged statement that expands to "I held a belief of imminent harm to myself from the bad man" or "I held a belief of imminent harm to my family/friends from the bad man".

And it's the starting point in your defense of your actions.

quote Originally posted by Hudini: I'm saying fear of harm IS the belief. That's all. You are saying "belief" is the needed reason but are not saying belief in what. Belief in harm to ones self or others is the same as fear. "I feared for my life" is a simple packaged statement that expands to "I held a belief of imminent harm to myself from the bad man" or "I held a belief of imminent harm to my family/friends from the bad man". And it's the starting point in your defense of your actions.

Ok, I get it. I was not exactly sure where you were going with it. But I understand now.
As long as the "who" "what" "when" "where" and if known "why" questions can be answered. Because FOR SURE in court, they will be asked " what did they do to deserve to die?".
Just by simply saying "I feared for my life", the courts will not be satisfied.

[This message has been edited by Rickady88GT (edited 06-26-2017).]

I am still waiting for a link to a law that says "I feared for my life" as a reason to kill another person.

In this context, "belief" and "fear" are synonymous.

And, to correct a theme of the last two pages (for the 3rd time), it is what a reasonable OFFICER would do, not a reasonable person. This is SCOTUS-decided decades ago. The distinction is very important during police shootings that are not clear-cut.

quote In this context, "belief" and "fear" are synonymous. And, to correct a theme of the last two pages (for the 3rd time), it is what a reasonable OFFICER would do, not a reasonable person. This is SCOTUS-decided decades ago. The distinction is very important during police shootings that are not clear-cut.

Except, this same "I feared for.." phrase is used in every self defense/home invasion, business robbery, road rage incidence defense shooting in America. I don't know of a single reported shooting or other defense type incidence in the last 5 years that it hasn't been stated.
Is it a slam dunk defense and does it always work? NO. But it is being used by anyone doing anything nowadays, and is repeated by police in reference to civilian-on-civilian self defense acts and is certainly being used by attorneys in open court and in closing arguments to the jury.
It doesn't matter one bit what SCOTUS says--jurists put more weight on what they hear from testimony than on case law or legalese, regardless of what instructions a judge may give to the jury. The prosecution has to convince a jury--the defense only has to sway [b]A[/b jurist.

If the exact wording of 'castle law' meant what some here say it does, judges would instruct juries to disregard any reference to those "I feared for my life" instances before they began deliberation. Judges don't, and they probably never will, regardless of what SCOTUS, statute law or anyone else says.
Even if they did, what has been said can't be unheard.
Those "I feared for..." words are the foundation of any self defense case. Say it, and you're half way home. Anyone that believes otherwise, has never sat on a jury or read a trial transcript.

http://www.stltoday.com/new...fc-145f3ec65594.html
"Franklin County homeowner said he feared for his life before killing intruder"

https://www.americas1stfree...ner-shoots-intruder/
"At that point, fearing for his life because he didn’t know if there was an accomplice in the house, he shot the intruder."

http://news.sky.com/story/p...or-his-life-10395639
"A man accused of shooting dead a teenager on his front porch feared for his safety after seeing a "shadowy figure", a jury hears."

http://www.nola.com/crime/i...er_feared_for_l.html
"Slidell homeowner feared for life in killing 'invincible' intruder, police say"

http://www.wfaa.com/news/lo...their-home/408056901
"The homeowner said he feared for his life, according to police"

https://www.usatoday.com/st...kills-teens/8480047/
"During closing arguments, the six-man, six-woman jury heard two portrayals of Smith — one a man who feared for his life.."

https://www.nationalgunrigh...902-nitro-wv-defense
Police say a homeowner in Nitro, WV feared for his life after confronting a man who crashed into his truck that was parked in the homeowner's driveway

http://america.aljazeera.co...ideshootingcase.html
"U.S.REGINA H. BOONE / AP
Man accused of shooting Renisha McBride feared for his life, jury is told"

http://www.omaha.com/news/m...9e-0017a43b2370.html
"By law, Nebraska residents are allowed to use deadly force during a home invasion if the person fears for his or her life. In March, a similar incident happened in the Fort Redman neighborhood. Ronald Green, then 66, had been watching the Creighton Bluejays basketball game on TV when an intruder kicked in his front door.

The suspect, Ramon R. Matlock, 19, hit Green in the face. Green shot and killed Matlock. Kleine concluded that the shooting was justified because Green feared for his life."

http://www.crimeonline.com/...uder-with-a-shotgun/
"He told authorities that he feared for his life and shot the suspect for his own safety."

http://kxan.com/2015/01/05/...ath-in-south-austin/
“The homeowner was alerted to the previous banging by his wife,” said Senior Police Officer Veneza Bremner. “The homeowner feared for his life and his family’s life,” said Bremner.“

http://www.breitbart.com/bi...hete-takes-away-gun/
"According to Daily Mail, three suspects entered the homeowner’s covered porch, “armed with a crowbar, a machete and a shotgun.” The Sarasota County Sheriff’s Office (SCSO) said the homeowner “feared for his life,” so he retreated to his home’s interior and retrieved a machete for self-defense."

https://www.usnews.com/news...-was-in-self-defense
"Brentwood Lt. Tim Herbert declined to discuss the case in detail. In California, Herbert said a homicide is legal when a victim kills because he fears for his life. "You have a right to defend yourself in your home," Herbert said."

http://www.ksat.com/news/1-...y-attempt-police-say
"A south side homeowner told San Antonio police he feared for his life, and that's why he shot another man outside his home critically wounding him."

Business:

http://www.bostonwishesh.co...red-at-a-robber.html
"A clerk feared for his life, and fired at a robber, who was leaving with cash, stolen from a Manchester market on 23rd January, 2017, Monday night Owner of the market, Junior Rodriguez said, “He reaching into his pocket and that’s what got me scared and afraid for my life.”

http://www.wistv.com/story/...during-armed-robbery
"Cordele store clerk feared for his life during armed robbery"

http://fox40.com/2017/05/15...shot-by-store-clerk/
"What you can't see or hear in the video are shots fired. Fairfield police say one of the clerks, fearing for his safety, opened fire at the would-be robber, sending him to the hospital.
Investigators say the weapon used in the attempted robbery was a BB gun. But that didn't make the situation less threatening, said Sgt. Matt Bloesch.
Bloesch said the clerk is not being charged.

"He lawfully possessed that firearm, he shot the man that was robbing his store because he feared for his life and he was defending himself, and he was defending another person," Bloesch said."

http://abc13.com/archive/8989347/
"he other suspect went behind the counter and emptied the register.

The store clerk said he feared for his life."

http://www.freerepublic.com...s/news/3217972/posts
"Fearing for his life, a clerk shot at two robbery suspects at a South Valley store on Monday night, according to the Bernalillo County Sheriff's Department."

http://www.msnewsnow.com/st...ed-on-murder-charges
"In closing arguments defense attorney Tom Fortner said Pannu feared for his life when he saw Hawthorne reaching for what he thought was a gun."

http://www.mercurynews.com/...the-back-police-say/
“Sunna believed he was about to be robbed or killed and was in fear for his life,” police said, summarizing what Sunna told detectives before his arrest."

http://miami.cbslocal.com/2...s-with-baseball-bat/
"“This clerk was in danger and I know he feared for his life and didn’t know what was going to happen in this situation,” said Moss. “I think he did the right thing.”"

http://wsvn.com/news/local/...out-of-my-community/
"The clerk said he feared for his life and felt forced to pull out his own gun, which caused the man to run out of the store but not before he started firin"

http://www.nhregister.com/g...kill-police-officers
"“The clerk advised police that he feared for his life,” Smith said in the release."

http://www.dailybulletin.co...7-eleven-at-gunpoint
"He threatened to kill the clerk if he did not hand over all the money in the register. The clerk feared for his life and complied with the robber’s demands, officials said."

Road rage:
http://www.msn.com/en-au/ne...eoZnO?refvid=AAe8qHE
(You'll have to listen to the video for this one:
"September 17, 2015: The victim of a terrifying road rage attack has told how he feared for his life as his car was repeatedly rammed."

http://abc13.com/news/man-a...-the-victim/1713363/
"He says it was only when he pulled into his driveway that he pulled a gun because he feared for his life."

http://www.seattletimes.com...feared-for-his-life/
"“It was a total accident. I swear to God I didn’t mean for this to happen,” Torrez said in the recording. “Like they said on the news, it’s unexplainable. … But I was in fear for my life."

http://fox43.com/2017/06/21...-road-rage-incident/
"Though the victim didn’t see a gun, he said he feared for his life, and slowed his car so Fitzgerald could pass. "

http://www.ksl.com/?nid=148&sid=22518985
""I feared for my life. I'm 5'4" and he's 6-something � the minute it happened, I had a bad feeling," Haskell said"

http://www.wsbtv.com/news/l...e-incident/521029852
"Police revealed Tuesday that they believe the man with the gun is the victim, saying he feared for his life when Ewing's boyfrind stepped out of the car."

http://news.maryland.gov/ms...-road-rage-incident/
"The victim advised that while stopped at the intersection of South Tollgate and MD Rt. 24, the suspect driving the Trailblazer pointed a handgun at him. In fear for his life, the victim sped off from the intersection only to be followed by the suspect, who was continuing to operate his vehicle in an erratic manner."

https://www.local10.com/new...l-road-rage-incident
"Swartzreich says Tullis feels awful about what happened but he feared for his life and had no idea what happened to Peterman until he saw it on the news."

http://www.kansascity.com/n...rticle108797992.html
"Not knowing if Alsobrook was armed, Crumpton told investigators he shot at the SUV because he feared for his life."


And, it doesn't matter if the wording "fear of life" is actually included in any state's "castle law" or not. It's the 'intent' of the legislation and practical use of the law that matters. The very worst that happens is using it might make grounds for appeal easier, but not more likely.
In law precedent is everything..semantics is not. "Fear fo my life''" has already been used countless times in courts and polled juries have stated it played a big part in their decision making/deliberation process.

http://www.wmdt.com/communi...0110150275/138804462
The reason he won't face charges is because Delaware state law has something called the modified Castle Doctrine, which essentially means your home is your castle. If someone unlawfully enters your property and approaches you, threatens you, endangers you, or puts you in fear of your life, you're legally able to defend yourself by discharging a firearm.

http://www.wmcactionnews5.c...an-you-legally-shoot
"If you are in fear of death or bodily injury, you can use a gun to defend yourself,” says gun instructor Chip Holland.

Holland says the only time you can use deadly force inside your car is if you feel personally trained. The laws do NOT protect property.

For any of it to be legal-- whether in your home or in your car-- you must fear for your life before you pull the trigger.

https://legaldictionary.net/castle-doctrine/
Many people across the U.S. found it difficult to understand how the case was proceeding in the face of Florida’s “Stand Your Ground” law. The law allows people, who have a reasonable fear that their lives are in jeopardy, to act in self defense – even to the level of responding with deadly force.

Fla "castle law" statute:
http://www.leg.state.fl.us/...ctions/0776.013.html
776.013 Home protection; use or threatened use of deadly force; presumption of fear of death or great bodily harm.—
(1) A person is presumed to have held a reasonable fear of imminent peril of death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another when using or threatening to use defensive force that is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm to another if:...

Texas "castle law" :
(a) A person is justified in using deadly force against another:

(1) if the actor would be justified in using force against the other under Section 9.31; and
(2) when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the deadly force is immediately necessary:
(A) to protect the actor against the other's use or attempted use of unlawful deadly force; or
(B) to prevent the other's imminent commission of aggravated kidnapping, murder, sexual assault, aggravated sexual assault, robbery, or aggravated robbery.

(b) The actor's belief under Subsection (a)(2) that the deadly force was immediately necessary as described by that subdivision is presumed to be reasonable if the actor:

(1) knew or had reason to believe that the person against whom the deadly force was used:
(A) unlawfully and with force entered, or was attempting to enter unlawfully and with force, the actor's occupied habitation, vehicle, or place of business or employment;
(B) unlawfully and with force removed, or was attempting to remove unlawfully and with force, the actor from the actor's habitation, vehicle, or place of business or employment; or(
C) was committing or attempting to commit an offense described by Subsection (a)(2)(B);
(2) did not provoke the person against whom the force was used; and
(3) was not otherwise engaged in criminal activity, other than a Class C misdemeanor that is a violation of a law or ordinance regulating traffic at the time the force was used.

As already stated, "belief and fear are synonymous".


It's not that I believe a person has no right to self defense, I in fact very much DO believe it, it's just that I firmly believe the 'fear' thing is way over used and muchly abused, and having had to shoot and often kill hundreds of people and being shot at by hundreds of adversaries on a weekly basis for 13 consecutive months, I know that fear is way overstated if not an absolute fabrication. I woulkd have to lie to use the "I feared for my life" defense, told my nephew the same thing and I'm just not going to lie to save my hide.
The only defense I need or will ever use:
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

[This message has been edited by maryjane (edited 06-26-2017).]

quote Originally posted by USMUCL: In this context, "belief" and "fear" are synonymous. And, to correct a theme of the last two pages (for the 3rd time), it is what a reasonable OFFICER would do, not a reasonable person. This is SCOTUS-decided decades ago. The distinction is very important during police shootings that are not clear-cut.

True.
States differ on self defense and lethal force but here in Ca there is no difference in the criteria between police and civilian. They both have to follow the SCOTUS ruling.

I consider myself a 'reasonable' person.

quote Originally posted by maryjane: I consider myself a 'reasonable' person.

quote It doesn't matter one bit what SCOTUS says--jurists put more weight on what they hear from testimony than on case law or legalese, regardless of what instructions a judge may give to the jury.

This is not exactly what I would consider a reasonable attitude towards the SCOTUS decision. But I have already said that the courtroom is a theatrical forum and a chess match. But "I feared for my life" is not a get out of jail free card. You still have to prove that a person did something to deserve to die. You have to explain in detail why you "feared for your life" AND that explanation MUST fall in line with the SCOTUS decision. If it does not meat the standards of the SCOTUS decision, then it is a homicide.
As far as civilian self defense, States do vary. I can imagine that the standard for self defense is more lax than a Law Enforcement Officers standard because the Officers have the added rules and regulations of their employers.

My fault for not making it clear I was talking about two different elements.

"Belief" or "fear" of imminent bodily harm or death is an element of the self-defense laws in some way, shape, or form in every state. It is constitutional and applied equally to all.

Whether that fear or belief is reasonable changes based on whether the shooter is working in the capacity of a LEO or is just a private citizen, as held by SCOTUS.

What you (or I) consider in regards to SCOTUS is irrelevant in the real world. Jurors disregard it all the time once in the deliberation phase. You know this as does everyone else.

Yes, it's a chess game, a card game of bluffing and bluster, but the defense goes in with an ace in the hole. And in the case of lethal force, 2 of them.
1. Presumed innocence. It's instructed during jury selection, again when the jury is seated and just before the evidence phase begins, again by the defense team during closing arguments, and again by the judge when he gives the jury instructions before sending them to deliberate. This is the hallmark of our justice system.

2. The defense doesn't have to 'prove' anything. The onus is all upon the prosecution..all defense has to do is mitigate anything the prosecution presents.
A defendant says "I feared for my life" and the whole case rests upon the prosecution disproving that assertion.

Get out of jail? Perhaps not, but where would the defense be without "I feared for my life"?
Find me one case where a judge instructed the court to disregard those 5 words. You will not be successful. It is simply THAT important and all else in the case pales in comparison. Without it, in almost every case, civilian or police, the defense case falls apart.
You know this as well as I.

[This message has been edited by maryjane (edited 06-26-2017).]

quote Originally posted by maryjane: It's not that I believe a person has no right to self defense, I in fact very much DO believe it, it's just that I firmly believe the 'fear' thing is way over used and muchly abused, and having had to shoot and often kill hundreds of people and being shot at by hundreds of adversaries on a weekly basis for 13 consecutive months, I know that fear is way overstated if not an absolute fabrication. I woulkd have to lie to use the "I feared for my life" defense, told my nephew the same thing and I'm just not going to lie to save my hide. The only defense I need or will ever use: We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

Don, I don't know if this can be placed on the scales with criminal activity. I've never been to war, and haven't experienced such a situation, but as a warrior you are trained and prepared to go into a environment where you are fully aware that you can be killed. In fact, your purpose in being there is to 'kill or be killed'. I'd call that kind of concern, or 'fear', situational awareness.

My interpretation of 'fear for my life' is one where a criminal takes up a weapon of any kind and presumes that he can dictate my life or that of my family. Whether an intruder, a car-jacker, or an on the street mugger, the weapon says to me that if I don't do as they demand, I can and likely WILL be killed. Sometimes those who obey are killed anyway.

If someone comes into my home at night or attempts robbing me or hurting my family, I will protect myself. If I must shoot them, I will, and I'll likely use 'fear of life' as a defense simply because the criminal act, bolstered by the presence of a weapon, puts me in fear that I MUST comply or be killed.

Where officer shooting is concerned, let the evidence determine what is just. Yes, we have rogue, trigger happy cops but the circumstances of their employment drives so much of that. It begins with the fact that they are attempting to control the evil within our society and they are asked to go where you and I would not go without serious protection. Having an awareness of fellow officers who have been lost, I'd say they have a right and reason to fear for their lives. Darren Goforth comes to mind.

[This message has been edited by texasfiero (edited 06-26-2017).]

quote but as a warrior you are trained and prepared to go into a environment where you are fully aware that you can be killed.

It has been stated in this thread that LEOs also are trained in situational awareness, are fully aware of the dangers and risks that are inherent with the job.
"what a reasonable officer would do (think)"
they aren't flying blind.

There are many many jobs that carry great risk to life and injury every day they go to work, either to themselves or those around them.
We all go into these jobs knowing what comes with the territory.

[This message has been edited by maryjane (edited 06-26-2017).]

Basically the person who says they feared for their life, shows their intent, to protect their life.
The rest depends on evidence.

quote Originally posted by maryjane: 2. The defense doesn't have to 'prove' anything. The onus is all upon the prosecution..all defense has to do is mitigate anything the prosecution presents. A defendant says "I feared for my life" and the whole case rests upon the prosecution disproving that assertion.

I dissagree on this. If a person makes a claim in court as their defense,...they will have to convince or prove to the jury that those claims are valid. EVEN in a case where no weapon was found, they still had to convince the jury that at the time they "believed" there was a threat. How else would the prosecution loose, if all they had to do was prove there was no weapon?

quote Get out of jail? Perhaps not, but where would the defense be without "I feared for my life"?

If it works,.. I guess?, why not. They still have the burden of providing testimony that will sway the jury.
Many cases do not even go to court because the evidence is so overwhelmingly in favor of the person who defended themselves selves or others. Even in those cases, they had the burden of providing a detailed statement that explained exactly why a person is dead.

quote Find me one case where a judge instructed the court to disregard those 5 words. You will not be successful.

I hope a judge does not tell a jury to disregard factual statements.

quote It is simply THAT important and all else in the case pales in comparison. Without it, in almost every case, civilian or police, the defense case falls apart. You know this as well as I.

I dissagree totally. YOU are the one stuck on those five words. I don't like to hear them, but who am I to say that they can't say them? It's not as if those five words are the only thing they will say in court. They still have to have a solid case to defend them in court. Even if they used the words I would rather they use "I believed ..........." they would still have to have a solid case in order to sway the jury.

[This message has been edited by Rickady88GT (edited 06-27-2017).]

Thank you for the read! I just finished a coffee to this, and it really is quite the thread.

I just wanted to comment on something MaryJane said...

Fear. I have little to no fear of situations. It is downright scary at times, but under extreme duress, time slows immensely. Any and all anxieties in life that I may have are cleared. There just is no fear. It would most likely be a lie if I used that defense.

I am not trying to come across as the ultimate badazz. Just commenting on how things are. EVERYONE reacts differently in every situation. Facts can be seen by two people, yet be told completely different. I learned to be clear a long time ago. It happened when my dick head dad was hitting me with a hangar. I remember and still can feel that exact moment in time. I can go back to that moment in my head and use that to not have fear. I.E. the scariest thing that I have ever seen.

I fully agree Tony.

One should always control their emotions, and never allow their emotions to control them.

quote Originally posted by maryjane: I fully agree Tony. One should always control their emotions, and never allow their emotions to control them.

Never say never, fear is a good thing, that is why God gave it to us. Maturity and control are also good.

[This message has been edited by Rickady88GT (edited 06-28-2017).]

I honestly mean it that this is a great thread. Not due to subject matter, but the actual discussion taking place. It shows several sides, and excellent points backing either one up.

FYI, I could use some of that emotion control at times. It does get better every day though.

Fear is a great thing. I watch the squirrels in my yard every morning. They fear birds of prey.

I will not say that I am incapable of fear completely. There are situations that I have not met yet.

quote Originally posted by maryjane: One should always control their emotions, and never allow their emotions to control them.

If a person were to hold up a convenience store to rob them of everything they had in the cash register, then shot and killed the clerk because he reached for a panic button,.... Would that robber get off the hook because he feared for his life? He thought the clerk was reaching for a gun. He feared for his life and reacted by defending himself against great bodily harm or death.

quote Originally posted by Rickady88GT: If a person were to hold up a convenience store to rob them of everything they had in the cash register, then shot and killed the clerk because he reached for a panic button,.... Would that robber get off the hook because he feared for his life? He thought the clerk was reaching for a gun. He feared for his life and reacted by defending himself against great bodily harm or death.

Uh, no.
He is committing a criminal act and is the impetus for the clerk's actions.
Silly question.

quote Originally posted by olejoedad: Uh, no. He is committing a criminal act and is the impetus for the clerk's actions. Silly question.

Sure, you are correct. BUT he used the magic words that are supposed to get him off the hook. My point is that even if a person says those words, they will still have to defend their actions AND those actions have to be justified.
Those five words don't have the value that some think they do.

quote Originally posted by maryjane: I fully agree Tony. One should always control their emotions, and never allow their emotions to control them.

says the hillbilly that lives in the boons with no one around..
That doesn't have to deal with animals 24/7/365 .. Cop's have to deal with thugs all day every day.. thugs that put zero value on life, on the rule of law, or anything else..

Sorry, but you have no flipping clue of what they are up against.. You live in mayberryville, not the Bronx,, you are shielded.. You'd **** your pants in an innercity at dusk to dawn.. FACT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[This message has been edited by E.Furgal (edited 06-28-2017).]

quote Originally posted by E.Furgal: says the hillbilly that lives in the boons with no one around.. That doesn't have to deal with animals 24/7/365 .. Cop's have to deal with thugs all day every day.. thugs that put zero value on life, on the rule of law, or anything else..

Still good advice from MJ though.

quote Originally posted by E.Furgal: says the hillbilly that lives in the boons with no one around.. That doesn't have to deal with animals 24/7/365 .. Cop's have to deal with thugs all day every day.. thugs that put zero value on life, on the rule of law, or anything else.. Sorry, but you have no flipping clue of what they are up against.. You live in mayberryville, not the Bronx,, you are shielded.. You'd **** your pants in an innercity at dusk to dawn.. FACT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Where a person is today Is not necessarily an indication of where he was yesterday.
Experience always comes along for the ride.

quote Originally posted by Boondawg: Where a person is today Is not necessarily an indication of where he was yesterday. Experience always comes along for the ride.

Nice rebuttal.

I'd rather be judged by 12 than carried by 6.