[leakingpen]

the flechettes aren't nearly as lethal at range.  Higher delta v from air drag.  And as to the situation, my suggestion were an additional.  In terms of the shotgun, if your going to have it, he should be prepared to drop her permanently with the first shot if need be.

[Mr. Joseph]

I agree that he should get a restraining order, but for very good, private reasons that he won't even discuss with me, he decided against it.  As for any, meaning all, cops saying that it would be better to kill another human being rather than crack a rib, puncture a lung, and possibly more leaving them in the ICU, if I ever met that cop, there would be a heated debate.  I know that you guys might know a little more about "Appendix A, Section 7" type stuff, but surely, I would not have the right to pull the trigger, unless use of a firearm was absolutely neccesary.  You are trying to say that if I shot and killed her, for certain in self defense, all that would happen is tax payers would have to pay for the clean-up.  Yet, if in the same situation, at the same moment in time, I pulled that same trigger and disabled her with a bean bag, or rubber bullet, I would get sued for everything I have.  Two possible trials there, a murder/assault charge by the peoples' prosecutor, and a private trial where I would get sued for damages for either murder or assault.  If I killed her and was found innocent on grounds of self defense, the second case wouldn't even get to trial.  If I assaulted her with a bean bag round in the same situation, and not charged for it, on grounds of self defense, the second case would not get to trial.  Im not positive, but in a situation where the intended victim kills their would be attacker in self defense, actually, I am sure, the would be attacker will be charged for attempting murder, or assault.  The intended victim simply got lucky and saved his/her own life.

Also keep in mind the right to trial by jury, where you and I have to sit and deliberate the innocent until proven guilty.  Can you honestly tell yourself that there won't be at least one person like me on the jury with you.  How can you not see that under the said circumstances, the self defending victim saved the life of the crazy attacker by first shooting a "less-lethal" round, disabling, not killing the person.

Lastly, my TV is really big, so bring alot of guys and a big truck.  Sell the TV, then pay someone to pick up the rest of my **** and empty my bank accounts, Im not going to take another human life unless there is no other option, especially just so that I can keep my TV and my Tahoe.

[Harley]

Tell that to the jury that sat on the the case where the old lady spilled her McDonald's coffee in her lap and won a million dollars.  Ever hear about the people that break into homes and get hurt and then sue the home owners, like the idiot that locked himself in the owners garage and only had dog food and warm soda to live on for a few days because the owner was out of town?  He sued the home owner and won.  If you really feel that you have a chance at a fair trial then go for it.  As for me, I won't take that chance.  If I feel my life is in danger, I'll get the restraining order and be prepared to take proper action.  We live in a screwed up society Joseph.  Think about it.

[Mr. Joseph]

Yea, we do live with some screwed up individuals.  None of those cases involved assault, especially one where murder was intended.  Don't you think that those cases are completely different from one where an individual means to hurt or kill another.  Have you ever even heard of someone trying to sue another in a similar situation?  I can't even begin to see a convicted murderer, or actually it would be someone who attempted murder, trying to sue the intended victim for injuring them when defending their own life.

Mr. Joseph

[Screwloose]

Stuff like that does happen.  I think they have changed the laws some now, so that if you are actually courned to standard.  but yeah, i would have put her partly at fault, and wouldnt have paid her as much as they did.

now, back on topic, hows the situation going?
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

You make me laugh and I know we're somewhat off topic, but how can you justify giving someone money for doing something stupid?  Common sense dictates that you do not put hot liquids between your legs or anywhere close to where you could possibly get burned by it.  How many of you that drink coffee blow on it before taking a sip?  I'll bet each and everyone of you do.  So if it's going to be too hot to take a drink from, what would make you think it would be any cooler on your skin.  God... if they could only teach common sense to people this world would be such a better place!

[Screwloose]

I'm not a lawyer, and that was Cali not here.  I doubt there would be as much debate over the act of self defense in this state as over there.

Here I know the basic rule is, a reasonable person must percieve there was an imminent threat of serious bodily harm or death to oneself or another.  Hence someone holding a gun threatening your life is grounds for you to defend yourself. I.E. shoot them.  Just don't shoot them in the back running away.

[leakingpen]

well now, hold on, the coffee was served 35 degrees above the temperature allowed by law, and that particular mcdonalds KNEW their coffee pot was brewing too hot.  So that's not a fair one.  But then, there was the burglar that cut himself on the glass of the window hed broken, sued, and won.  so there are some good examples.  and i agree with your stance of not being willing to take a life like that.  but with a nonlethal round, you are setting yourself up for a situation where you may be unable to pull the trigger that second time, and thus losing YOUR life.  (or rather, your father is setting himself up to lose HIS life)

[azsarge]

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="1" face="Verdana" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by leakingpen</i>
<br />well now, hold on, the coffee was served 35 degrees above the temperature allowed by law, and that particular mcdonalds KNEW their coffee pot was brewing too hot.  So that's not a fair one.  But then, there was the burglar that cut himself on the glass of the window hed broken, sued, and won.  so there are some good examples.  and i agree with your stance of not being willing to take a life like that.  but with a nonlethal round, you are setting yourself up for a situation where you may be unable to pull the trigger that second time, and thus losing YOUR life.  (or rather, your father is setting himself up to lose HIS life)

<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

What temperature is that?  Coffee is best brewed at 190 degrees.  Even if they had decreased the temperature by 10 (to 180), 35 over that would place it over the boiling point.  I know this is picky, but I can't pass up a good argument![]

PS, I worked at Starbucks for a year, and we brewed ours at 190.  Serving temp was in the range of 180-185.

[Harley]

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="1" face="Verdana" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by leakingpen</i>
<br />well now, hold on, the coffee was served 35 degrees above the temperature allowed by law, and that particular mcdonalds KNEW their coffee pot was brewing too hot.  So that's not a fair one.  But then, there was the burglar that cut himself on the glass of the window hed broken, sued, and won.  so there are some good examples.  and i agree with your stance of not being willing to take a life like that.  but with a nonlethal round, you are setting yourself up for a situation where you may be unable to pull the trigger that second time, and thus losing YOUR life.  (or rather, your father is setting himself up to lose HIS life)

<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

Whether the coffee was too hot or not was not the issue.  The issue should have been that the woman was TOO STUPID and put a hot cup of coffee between her legs while she was driving and it spilled.  If I was on that jury I would have not given her a dime.

[Foxx]

Maybe this is a stupid response but would it not be easier to use Tranquilizers, then you are garentted that she aint going anywere. it be like old school. just a thought.

[leakingpen]

except that the introduction of a dissolved solvent (ie coffe) raises the boiling temperature. and brewing at pressure can create a condition known as superheated, where the water is higher than boiling temperature without boiling, even when pressure is returned to standard.  but yeah, i would have put her partly at fault, and wouldnt have paid her as much as they did.

now, back on topic, hows the situation going?

[Harley]

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="1" face="Verdana" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by leakingpen</i>
<br />except that the introduction of a dissolved solvent (ie coffe) raises the boiling temperature. and brewing at pressure can create a condition known as superheated, where the water is higher than boiling temperature without boiling, even when pressure is returned to standard.  but yeah, i would have put her partly at fault, and wouldnt have paid her as much as they did.

now, back on topic, hows the situation going?
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

You make me laugh and I know we're somewhat off topic, but how can you justify giving someone money for doing something stupid?  Common sense dictates that you do not put hot liquids between your legs or anywhere close to where you could possibly get burned by it.  How many of you that drink coffee blow on it before taking a sip?  I'll bet each and everyone of you do.  So if it's going to be too hot to take a drink from, what would make you think it would be any cooler on your skin.  God... if they could only teach common sense to people this world would be such a better place!

[azsarge]

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="1" face="Verdana" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by leakingpen</i>
<br />except that the introduction of a dissolved solvent (ie coffe) raises the boiling temperature. and brewing at pressure can create a condition known as superheated, where the water is higher than boiling temperature without boiling, even when pressure is returned to standard.  but yeah, i would have put her partly at fault, and wouldnt have paid her as much as they did.

now, back on topic, hows the situation going?
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

I'm not sure what kind of nuclear coffee pot YOU use, but most commercial brewers (like the FETCO used at Starbucks), and most likely the ones used at McDonalds, use a simple drip method.  The water is heated in a boiler, then released through a spray head over an open filter full of grounds.  About 5 degrees are lost when the hot water leaves the head, even though the unit is semi-sealed.  So you see, even IF the water was above 212, it wouldn't have been by the time she got it.

And let me ask you something...Can you tell the difference between a 190 degree burn and a 212 degree burn?  Even if it WAS hotter than it should have been, the few degree increase would not have increased pain of tissue damage by a notable ammount.

It's called <i>common sense</i>, and she didn't have any.  It sickens me that such a lack of it was rewarded by the court!

[Screwloose]

This is America guys, the country that makes Darwin roll in his grave.  Here we reward stupidity with publicity and money.  Anyone smart enough to survive on their own here is punished.

[Paco]

Stella - the one who burned herself with the McDonald's coffee in 1992 - her lawsuit was the one that started the "I am not responsible for my own dumb actions or ignorance" types of lawsuits.  She was originally awarded $2.9 MILLION for her dumb accident.  More info is here:

http://www.stellaawards.com/stella.html

It's all just a measure of how <s>liberal(?)</s> and degraded our society has become.