That JAG office that gave the legal brief during the training made no bones about it, "If you shoot someone without a locking plate installed on your weapon, you WILL go to prison".
Can't we just turn Congress off and then turn it back on again?
That's the only one, it's pretty specific. And the premise is that a person spends their life, their work, to acquire that property on which their lives and the lives of their family depends. And that taking that property endangers the family. If it can be *prevented,* then it is preservation of the family. If it cant be prevented, you cant go and kill or even commit assault to take your property back....then you need to depend on 'the wheels of justice.'
Even in Seattle, liberal city, a few years ago a man shot a guy running away, stealing his stereo. He shot him in the back and killed him. He was charged but got off of almost all charges and ended up just with 'time served.' I forget the specific charge he ended up with but it wasnt a murder charge.
Stealing is risky. Thieves are the ones that place property above their lives.
Anyway I see the validity of this sentiment, but how many 'reasonable' lawsuits wouldn't be filed because the plaintiff didn't have the bucks to payoff the process if defeated? The jury's decision in the OJ Simpson comes to mind...(crazy decisions in court cases).
Maybe every plaintiff, before filing the lawsuit, pays into a 'loser's fund'? Call it plaintiff loser's insurance?... Which probably wouldn't lessen the amount of lawsuits... Always look for the loophole...
Last edited by cabse5; 09-04-14 at 07:46 AM.