Quote:
Originally posted by butthead
What is relevant is the self-defense claim, which is obviously not true. If you don't wish to accept this as fact or are unable to for various reasons, then there is no logical argument here.
|
I already
told you we were going in circles. And I reiterated it in my previous post.
I don't know the law in Arizona. Do you?
Quote:
|
Intuitively I doubt this includes unreasonable force.
|
You don't know Texas very well. What they consider "unreasonable force" is beyond anything a normal human can handle. They allow people to recover their property, they allow you to shoot tresspassers on sight (and on site), and I'm certain this particular event wouldn't be an issue there. But I can't speak for AZ.
Quote:
|
And if you are acknowledging he did pursue them, then you must also acknowledge that this was not self-defense. He was in no danger when he crushed their vehicle.
|
Nope. Danger has nothing to do with it. He was defending his property. Again, you're begging the question unless you
know for a fact that AZ doesn't allow this.