Superior Court, en banc, Decision regarding Possessing Weapons on School Property!

[john9001]

you are wrong, self defense is not a criminal act. Actually self defense is a inalienable right.

[MachineGunKelly]

It's called justifiable homicide because it has a defense.

Homicide on its face is still a crime.

"Homicide" by itself, is never a crime!

[GunLawyer001]

It's called justifiable homicide because it has a defense.

Homicide on its face is still a crime.

You are correct:

18 Pa.C.S.A. § 2501. Criminal homicide

(a) Offense defined.--A person is guilty of criminal homicide if he intentionally, knowingly, recklessly or negligently causes the death of another human being.
(b) Classification.--Criminal homicide shall be classified as murder, voluntary manslaughter, or involuntary manslaughter.

you are wrong, self defense is not a criminal act. Actually self defense is a inalienable right.

See below. This is not a college freshman bull session, we tend to discuss the real laws in the real world, the Amistad case aside.

"Homicide" by itself, is never a crime!

No. Killing another person is presumptively a crime. Sometimes, the law excuses it. Our statutory "use of force" and "use of deadly force" laws, including "Castle Doctrine" and "stand your ground", set out the circumstances under which society will excuse your killing of another human being (and our abortion laws play weird make-believe games, so that you can kill your kid but a stranger will be charged with murder if he kills your kid; "is it a human being?" "well, that depends on who's killing it.")

[KCJones]

See below. This is not a college freshman bull session, we tend to discuss the real laws in the real world, the Amistad case aside.

As soon as I saw "you are wrong" I was just waiting for Phil to show up and correct it.

[john9001]

Real laws are not always right, that's why in the real world they are sometimes changed.

[GunLawyer001]

Real laws are not always right, that's why in the real world they are sometimes changed.

Yes, but I would be wrong if I wrote "silencers are not regulated. Actually silencers are an inalienable right." Because they are regulated. And homicide is a criminal act, because there are statutes and cops and courts and jails and such.

[Deadpan]

Homicide that is justified is not a criminal act and possessing a gun for self defense does not impute criminal intent.

Commonwealth v. Watson, 494 Pa. 467, 431 A.2d 949 (1981):

...In this case, criminal intent cannot be inferred from the circumstances surrounding appellant's possession of the gun which killed her husband because appellant, having acted in self-defense, never used that gun to commit a crime...

[Gunsnwater]

You are correct:

18 Pa.C.S.A. § 2501. Criminal homicide

(a) Offense defined.--A person is guilty of criminal homicide if he intentionally, knowingly, recklessly or negligently causes the death of another human being.
(b) Classification.--Criminal homicide shall be classified as murder, voluntary manslaughter, or involuntary manslaughter.




See below. This is not a college freshman bull session, we tend to discuss the real laws in the real world, the Amistad case aside.



No. Killing another person is presumptively a crime. Sometimes, the law excuses it. Our statutory "use of force" and "use of deadly force" laws, including "Castle Doctrine" and "stand your ground", set out the circumstances under which society will excuse your killing of another human being (and our abortion laws play weird make-believe games, so that you can kill your kid but a stranger will be charged with murder if he kills your kid; "is it a human being?" "well, that depends on who's killing it.")

If a woman paid a Dr for an abortion and he pushed her down a flight of stairs and she lost the fetus, would it be leagal abortion or not?

Sorry, I'll let the adults talk now.

[Gun]

If a woman paid a Dr for an abortion and he pushed her down a flight of stairs and she lost the fetus, would it be leagal abortion or not?

Sorry, I'll let the adults talk now.

If the procedure is sanctioned and the patient signed a waiver, then it would be legal.

[ideaman]

Reading the Federalist Paper # 78. Any Federal judge including SCOTUS can be removed for bad behavior. It's the States duty to demand congress remove Ginsberg who dissed the Constitution and Kagan for not recusing herself from the Obamacare. The swamp seems to have no bottom.