| Submit your comments on this article |
| Home Front: Politix |
| EDWARDS WIFE: NO RIOTS IF WE WIN |
| 2004-10-25 |
| XXXXX DRUDGE REPORT XXXXX MON OCT 25, 2004 09:55:21 ET XXXXX EDWARDS WIFE: NO RIOTS IF WE WIN The wife of Dem vice presidential hopeful John Edwards said on Sunday there will be no riots around the election -- if Kerry/Edwards wins! C-SPAN cameras captured spouse Elizabeth Edwards making the startling comments to a supporter during a Kerry Campaign Town Hall Meeting in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania. Supporter: Kerry's going to take PA. |
| Posted by:Steve |
| #33 Hey AC, you wanna move north? "(1) No person in the state shall be placed in legal jeopardy of any kind whatsoever for protecting by any reasonable means necessary, himself or herself, his or her family, or his or her real or personal property, or for coming to the aid of another who is in imminent danger of or the victim of assault, robbery, kidnapping, arson, burglary, rape, murder, or any other violent crime as defined in RCW 9.94A.030." See also RCW 9A.16.050 for forgivable use of deadly force. Of course, it doesn't always work this way in the courts, but we're working on it. |
| Posted by: Asedwich 2004-10-26 12:55:32 AM |
#32 I remember that, Ptah. This was my take at the time:Hmmmph. I don't think anything has changed in 10 months, except for the addition of union goons to the rebel ranks and some displays of LLL ruthlessness that even we did not expect (attacks on children, shooting up GOP offices, etc.) |
| Posted by: Atomic Conspiracy 2004-10-25 9:41:12 PM |
| #31 Tomorrow is Range Day with #2 Son (home on leave from Iraq) and his GF. Time to blow off a shitpile of ammo and play with some rental guns to see if there's anything I'd like to purchase. |
| Posted by: Dave D. 2004-10-25 9:13:49 PM |
| #30 Here's my take on the issue: Ok, NOW I'm P*SSED!" |
| Posted by: Ptah 2004-10-25 8:49:41 PM |
| #29 |
| Posted by: Mark Espinola 2004-10-25 6:30:08 PM |
| #28 And do not ever touch anyone under 18. The penalties for injury to a minor make the charges a burglar might be facing seem inconsequential. AC, my entire take on Texas came directly from Plano Police Detectives who had a very long talk with me after I was burglarized. The gang working my area used a garage-door scanner - it had 1024 codes and opened (they said) about 90%. If the door into the house from the garage was unlocked, and that was quite common, then the gang was in biz. If locked - they'd leave in fear of an alarm. The key thing this group had going for them was that the leader was a 30 yr old pro - and all of his gang were 16 and under - and they went into the houses - he stayed in the van circling the area and picking up loot (inside the garage). The cops were desperate to catch these guys and spent about 12 hours working my house to make sure they had any and all possible prints. I got a call about 4 months later from one of them - they said they had to go under the table, but finally got 'em. They did it by illegally accessing the Juvi records for prints and backtracking. One of them was the younger brother of the leader. |
| Posted by: .com 2004-10-25 6:14:10 PM |
| #27 That is not the case, Steve. I am not a lawyer, but I have lived in Texas for 30 years, I have served as a peace officer here and I have twice held elective office in this state. Texas juries tend to be fairly liberal (excuse the expression) in their interpretation of the facts, tending to err on the side of self-defense, but you absolutely cannot shoot someone to keep him from stealing, say, your car or knocking the windows out of your office. Otoh, if you are in your car or office at the time, there is an assumed threat to life, unless the miscreant is clearly retreating from the scene. Further, and contrary to legend and liberal dogma, a criminal does not have to be armed to present an imminent threat. Mobs are lethal with their bare hands and feet, and wrestling around with a burglar could easily lead to the burglar acquiring and using a lethal weapon (a lamp or kitchen knife, for example). Further, the criminal does not have to be inside your house in Texas to justify lethal force, if an imminent threat is being directed from outside (shooting or throwing a molotov cocktail for example). You also have the right to effect a citizen's arrest, but only for a felony in Texas. If a felon presents an imminent threat while resisting such an arrest, lethal force is justified, but you had better have it right when you see the Grand Jury. |
| Posted by: Atomic Conspiracy 2004-10-25 5:57:03 PM |
| #26 We have some embattled folks who can answer this: How does it work in MassLalaLand? For instance, in Bahstahn, is it ever justified to whack a criminal? Inside your home (or business) or out? Does he hafta like ravage all your wymyns and kill 'em and then piss on the Pope's picture, first? Do you hafta get shot 3 or 4 times first before you can shoot back? I'm pretty sure in The People's Democrapic Depublic of Berkeley you're required to shoot yourself so that the perp won't need therapy, at public expense, but I could be wrong. Just wondering. This ROE stuff needs clarification in all of the various political climates / locales for those lurking so they'll be well informed and prepared. BTW, in Texas, you don't have to hose down the front walk to remove the blood smears clearly showing you dragged his ass back into the house to finish him off - before you call 911, but it makes things easier for the policemyns. And they are your only friends (other than Mssrs Smith & Wesson, of course) when bad shit happens, so it's considered good form to help out and cut down their paperwork like that. |
| Posted by: .com 2004-10-25 5:45:31 PM |
| #25 For dem riots, we need water cannon. Super Hose, your recommendations? |
| Posted by: Alaska Paul 2004-10-25 5:43:13 PM |
| #24 Kalifornia is stricter than most, so if you live here: 1) make sure the perp is INSIDE the house and 2) shot from the FRONT, and then 3) stick your drop gun in his hand Hope it helps. |
| Posted by: mojo 2004-10-25 5:23:45 PM |
| #23 Is Stephen Hatfill still an Anthrax attack "person of interest"? lol |
| Posted by: Frank G 2004-10-25 5:23:33 PM |
| #22 A.K.A. The "Law Enforcement" approach. The Fibbies will guarantee that within 6 months they'll know who killed you, how they did it, and what their favorite beverage is. That information will then be added to the Profile Database which will never be used due to PC considerations. Sleep well. |
| Posted by: .com 2004-10-25 5:21:03 PM |
| #21 What are our rules of engagement for the inevitable post-Kerry-defeat riots? Exactly what should be the threshold before I/we slap down the insurrection with extreme predjudice? Spiffo, according to the Kerry Doctrine, you will only be allowed to defend yourself after you've been killed. |
| Posted by: Jules 187 2004-10-25 5:02:49 PM |
| #20 You cannot use lethal force in defense of property Ya'll ain't spent much time down here in Texas, have you, Pilgrim? Perfectly legal to shoot stealing varmits, no bag limit. |
| Posted by: Steve 2004-10-25 4:55:00 PM |
| #19 Spiffo, you obviously have the right to defend yourself, your family, and other innocent people whose lives are in danger should you fail to act. You cannot use lethal force in defense of property, but a mob attack on your home or workplace presents a danger to life, prima facie. You don't have to wait for them to actually attack a person, at which point it would be too late. An exception to the "protection of property" exclusion would involve attempts to disrupt vote counting or court proceedings. These should instantly be met by lethal force if disruption or distortion of the process would result without that level of force. If the Constitutional process if not worth defending, nothing is, not even your own life. |
| Posted by: Atomic Conspiracy 2004-10-25 3:34:52 PM |
| #18 Spiffo, I would suggest non-lethal means (paintballs would be good, maybe buckshot or something that stings) unless you believe yourself or your family to be in imminent danger. However, I strongly advise that no misbehaviour be allowed to go unpunished, if only by publicizing photos of the miscreants in action (local news media or the internet). These people are like toddlers: let them get away with the little things, and they'll move on to bigger ones, and soon your house will be burning to the ground. Sort of the Guiliani Broken Window theory writ large. I plan to make sure all the cameras are fully charged, with extra memory cards that I hope not to need, although this part of the world is pretty strongly Bush territory. |
| Posted by: trailing wife 2004-10-25 3:32:05 PM |
| #17 point of order! What are our rules of engagement for the inevitable post-Kerry-defeat riots? Exactly what should be the threshold before I/we slap down the insurrection with extreme predjudice? Or should we just let them get it out of their systems and only apply deadly force if we or others are directly threatened? |
| Posted by: spiffo 2004-10-25 2:59:38 PM |
| #16 Jack - This needs to be done as a Venn Diagram! |
| Posted by: BigEd 2004-10-25 2:54:11 PM |
| #15 I read this as a THREAT: If we dont win we will riot! |
| Posted by: CrazyFool 2004-10-25 1:47:07 PM |
| #14 Interesting syllogism here: If the Dems win - no Democratic riots If the Republicans win - Democratic riots If the Dems lose - no Republican riots If the Republicans lose - no Republican riots Note that there will only be riots if the Dems lose. |
| Posted by: Jack is Back! 2004-10-25 1:33:23 PM |
| #13 Um, I predict MSM schizophrenia - not that it's not present in spades now, heh. Make that double-heh. |
| Posted by: .com 2004-10-25 12:02:08 PM |
| #12 "What a phreakin' field day for the comedians and pseudo-reportage of the MSM..." If Kerry wins, the MSM are going to be between a rock and a hard place: do they try to salvage some shred of credibility by reporting fairly on what will surely be an endless series of spectacularly disastrous Kerry fuckups? Or will they spike their credibility into the ground by covering his ass? Either way, it'd be a wild four years. |
| Posted by: Dave D. 2004-10-25 11:52:07 AM |
| #11 I am thinking about some union goon, or weasley ACLU ambulance-chaser in Florida and Ohio, doing some "planned anger" violence. I am thinking about a regular citizen with his concealed weapons permit defending his family and property which had "offended" the union gorilla or the lawyer snake by the existence of a Bush yard sign... And, I am thinking of a scene from a certain well known Clint Eastwood movie, where "Dirty Harry" ends a famous soliloquy with, "Well, do ya feel lucky punk, well, do ya?" Terry McAuliffe: How can you ask some ACLU or AFL-CIO thug to be the last one to die for Teresa Heinz Kerry's right to hire decorators for the White House at government expense... |
| Posted by: BigEd 2004-10-25 11:44:58 AM |
| #10 Al Katy: Gnashing of teeth? Wearing sackcloth and ashes? Heh. What's that quote? "...To crush your enemies, see them driven before you, and to hear the lamentation of their women..." This old Arnold image needs updating... |
| Posted by: .com 2004-10-25 11:42:03 AM |
| #9 me to Bill. I want to hear the whole DU whine about having to moving to Canada to escape W. Music to my ears. |
| Posted by: Jarhead 2004-10-25 11:35:45 AM |
| #8 I will get so much pleasure out of seeing this dimwits go down for the count. I want to see them crying, foaming at the mouth and acting like the classless idiots they are. I want to see Blather crying in his beer, Al Katy Couric with a big frown on her face telling us that W is in for another 4. I want to see the whole crowd lamenting. |
| Posted by: Bill Nelson 2004-10-25 11:30:49 AM |
| #7 She's a mighty large target, too, if we're talking center-mass... Can anyone picture the endless SNAFUs if Tahrayzah and Lizzie "take office"? What a phreakin' field day for the comedians and pseudo-reportage of the MSM... |
| Posted by: .com 2004-10-25 11:28:43 AM |
| #6 Wow. Now it's Edwards's wife who is making the goofy statements. I think the Dems have successfully destroyed any hopes of using the "vast Rightwing Conspiracy" excuse for their losing. All these yahoos have to do is keep talking. They're destroying themselves. |
| Posted by: nada 2004-10-25 11:26:45 AM |
| #5 Lock and load baby! |
| Posted by: badanov 2004-10-25 11:26:09 AM |
| #4 Then let's make damn sure they LOSE. Go ahead and try it, assholes. Remember who has the guns. |
| Posted by: Barbara Skolaut 2004-10-25 11:19:52 AM |
| #3 It seems she knows the Dem base well. When children don't get what they weally, weally, weally wanted, there'll be temper tantrums! |
| Posted by: Bulldog 2004-10-25 11:10:22 AM |
| #2 what a classless loser |
| Posted by: Frank G 2004-10-25 10:53:14 AM |
| #1 The implication being that Edwards' wife expects riots if Kerry loses. How interesting. |
| Posted by: Kalle (kafir forever) 2004-10-25 10:39:42 AM |
