Am you legally justified in killing a passenger who refuses toturn off their cell phone?

"Scout" wrote in news:jgs5q1
:



"RD Sandman" wrote in message
...
"Scout" wrote in
news:jgpnkj
:



"RD Sandman" wrote in message
...
"Michael A. Terrell" wrote in
m:


SaPeIsMa wrote:

"Mxsmanic" wrote in message
news RD Sandman writes:

The definition is a "reasonable person". And, yes, from flight
cabin announcements over the years, a goodly number of normally
"reasonable" passengers could very well have that fear.

What part of the announcements would instill such an irrational
fear?

Let's see
THe dropping oxygen masks
The proper position for a crash landing
THe use of a seat cushion as a floatation device

The serving of airline food.

The peanuts used to be pretty good.

I always liked the almonds better.




You flew first class, I didn't....back then.

Nope, just economy. But you could still get the almonds.

Damn, all I got were the peanuts......and free drinks. Oh, well, I
assume that makes up for the peanuts.

--
It's impossible to defeat an ignorant man in argument.

William G McAdoo


Sleep well, tonight.....

RD (The Sandman)

"SaPeIsMa" writes:

"David Dyer-Bennet" wrote in message
...
"SaPeIsMa" writes:

"David Dyer-Bennet" wrote in message
...
"SaPeIsMa" writes:

"Mxsmanic" wrote in message
...
SaPeIsMa writes:

You're strapped into a metal cylinder with the doors closed
Where exactly do you imagine you can do a "feasible retreat" ?

It doesn't matter. The criterion of immediate fear or death or
bodily harm is
not satisfied.

I don't know about you, but being strapped into a metal tube that can
crash and burn, and over which you have ABSOLUTELY NO CONTROl, is not
exactly free of the fear of immediate death and or bodily harm by any
count
Why do you think that white-knuckle syndrome os so prevalent during
takeoffs and landings ?

:-)

Not reasonable in the legal sense, though; the actual odds of crashing
and burning are trivial.


People who are afraid are not necessarily rational or "reasonable"
about it.

But the legal right to use deadly force IS conditioned on your fear
being both immediate and "reasonable", which is where this discussion
began.


Funny,
But there's nothing in the Minnesota statutes about "reasonable"
You just have to be in "imminent fear"
And that is not "reasonable fear"

I believe that 'reasonable' is implicit in the entire body of the law,
though; you can't justify any random thing by claiming some convenient
fear.

I *know* that it was explicitly included in all the different materials
I've seen from different instructors for carry permit courses in the
state.

I've heard other people talk about this "no control" issue, but I just
fail to get it. I don't *want* to be in control of the airplane; I'm
not the trained pilot.

What you may want or not want has nothing to do with it.
You need to put yourself in the shoes of the person in fear.
Your view counts for nothing in their universe.

Wrong; I might be on the jury.

IN which case, you just demonstrated prejudice and should be disqualified

And so must everybody else.
--
David Dyer-Bennet, ; http://dd-b.net/
Snapshots: http://dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/data/
Photos: http://dd-b.net/photography/gallery/
Dragaera: http://dragaera.info

Gunner Asch writes:

On Tue, 24 Jan 2012 13:39:03 -0600, David Dyer-Bennet
wrote:



People who are afraid are not necessarily rational or "reasonable" about it.

But the legal right to use deadly force IS conditioned on your fear
being both immediate and "reasonable", which is where this discussion
began.

Fear? Can you provide cites to the "fear" of which you blither?

Already done by others.

It's in the statutes, and it's in the carry permit course materials
(those aren't state prepared, so that's not definitive about what the
law actually is, but the ones I used were extensivly vetted by multiple
expert lawyers).
--
David Dyer-Bennet, ; http://dd-b.net/
Snapshots: http://dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/data/
Photos: http://dd-b.net/photography/gallery/
Dragaera: http://dragaera.info

Gunner Asch writes:

On Wed, 25 Jan 2012 16:53:24 -0800 (PST), Shall not be infringed
wrote:

On Jan 24, 11:34*pm, Gunner Asch wrote:
On Tue, 24 Jan 2012 13:39:03 -0600, David Dyer-Bennet
wrote:



People who are afraid are not necessarily rational or "reasonable" about it.

But the legal right to use deadly force IS conditioned on your fear
being both immediate and "reasonable", which is where this discussion
began.

Fear? *Can *you provide cites to the "fear" of which you blither?

Fear is like pain. There is no way to measure it. You either say you
have it or you say you don't.

Yes of course. Now Californias law makes no mention of fear whatsoever.


"reasonable cause to believe that your life or the life of another is in
immediate danger"

No fear is required.

Legally those mean the exact same thing.

--
David Dyer-Bennet, ; http://dd-b.net/
Snapshots: http://dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/data/
Photos: http://dd-b.net/photography/gallery/
Dragaera: http://dragaera.info

David Dyer-Bennet wrote in
:

"SaPeIsMa" writes:

"David Dyer-Bennet" wrote in message
...
"SaPeIsMa" writes:

"David Dyer-Bennet" wrote in message
...
"SaPeIsMa" writes:

"Mxsmanic" wrote in message
...
SaPeIsMa writes:

You're strapped into a metal cylinder with the doors closed
Where exactly do you imagine you can do a "feasible
retreat" ?

It doesn't matter. The criterion of immediate fear or death or
bodily harm is
not satisfied.

I don't know about you, but being strapped into a metal tube that
can crash and burn, and over which you have ABSOLUTELY NO
CONTROl, is not exactly free of the fear of immediate death and
or bodily harm by any count
Why do you think that white-knuckle syndrome os so prevalent
during takeoffs and landings ?

:-)

Not reasonable in the legal sense, though; the actual odds of
crashing and burning are trivial.


People who are afraid are not necessarily rational or "reasonable"
about it.

But the legal right to use deadly force IS conditioned on your fear
being both immediate and "reasonable", which is where this
discussion began.


Funny,
But there's nothing in the Minnesota statutes about "reasonable"
You just have to be in "imminent fear"
And that is not "reasonable fear"

I believe that 'reasonable' is implicit in the entire body of the law,
though; you can't justify any random thing by claiming some convenient
fear.

Bingo!! Particularly laws regarding use of deadly physical force.

I *know* that it was explicitly included in all the different
materials I've seen from different instructors for carry permit
courses in the state.

The "reasonable person" thingy.

I've heard other people talk about this "no control" issue, but I
just fail to get it. I don't *want* to be in control of the
airplane; I'm not the trained pilot.

What you may want or not want has nothing to do with it.
You need to put yourself in the shoes of the person in fear.
Your view counts for nothing in their universe.

Wrong; I might be on the jury.

IN which case, you just demonstrated prejudice and should be
disqualified

And so must everybody else.

The defendent or his attorney needs to articulate that fear well enough
in court to convince the jury.

--
It's impossible to defeat an ignorant man in argument.

William G McAdoo


Sleep well, tonight.....

RD (The Sandman)

"RD Sandman" wrote in message
...
"Scout" wrote in news:jgs5q1
:



"RD Sandman" wrote in message
...
"Scout" wrote in
news:jgpnkj
:



"RD Sandman" wrote in message
...
"Michael A. Terrell" wrote in
m:


SaPeIsMa wrote:

"Mxsmanic" wrote in message
news RD Sandman writes:

The definition is a "reasonable person". And, yes, from flight
cabin announcements over the years, a goodly number of normally
"reasonable" passengers could very well have that fear.

What part of the announcements would instill such an irrational
fear?

Let's see
THe dropping oxygen masks
The proper position for a crash landing
THe use of a seat cushion as a floatation device

The serving of airline food.

The peanuts used to be pretty good.

I always liked the almonds better.




You flew first class, I didn't....back then.

Nope, just economy. But you could still get the almonds.

Damn, all I got were the peanuts......and free drinks. Oh, well, I
assume that makes up for the peanuts.

Hell, got free drinks too. I think you could even get alcohol if you were an
adult......but there may or may not have been a small fee for that. I want
to say the fees came later, but can't say for certain since at that time I
wasn't of age and even now I'm not much of a drinker.
Heck, I've even got packs of playing cards they handed out if you asked for
them.

Spehro Pefhany wrote:

On Sun, 05 Feb 2012 23:25:28 -0500, the renowned "Michael A. Terrell"
wrote:


SaPeIsMa wrote:

"Mxsmanic" wrote in message
news RD Sandman writes:

The definition is a "reasonable person". And, yes, from flight cabin
announcements over the years, a goodly number of normally "reasonable"
passengers could very well have that fear.

What part of the announcements would instill such an irrational fear?

Let's see
THe dropping oxygen masks
The proper position for a crash landing
THe use of a seat cushion as a floatation device

The serving of airline food.

That's rare these days on domestic flights.


I should hope so. The bad food is why I haven't flown since 1974.


--
You can't have a sense of humor, if you have no sense.

RD Sandman wrote:

"Michael A. Terrell" ? wrote in
m:

?
? SaPeIsMa wrote:
??
?? "Mxsmanic" ? wrote in message
?? news ?? ? RD Sandman ? writes:
?? ?
?? ?? The definition is a "reasonable person". And, yes, from flight
?? ?? cabin announcements over the years, a goodly number of normally
?? ?? "reasonable" passengers could very well have that fear.
?? ?
?? ? What part of the announcements would instill such an irrational
?? ? fear?
??
?? Let's see
?? THe dropping oxygen masks
?? The proper position for a crash landing
?? THe use of a seat cushion as a floatation device
?
? The serving of airline food.

The peanuts used to be pretty good.


If you could open them.

--
You can't have a sense of humor, if you have no sense.

SaPeIsMa wrote:

"Michael A. Terrell" ? wrote in message
m...
?
? SaPeIsMa wrote:
??
?? "Mxsmanic" ? wrote in message
?? news ?? ? RD Sandman ? writes:
?? ?
?? ?? The definition is a "reasonable person". And, yes, from flight cabin
?? ?? announcements over the years, a goodly number of normally "reasonable"
?? ?? passengers could very well have that fear.
?? ?
?? ? What part of the announcements would instill such an irrational fear?
??
?? Let's see
?? THe dropping oxygen masks
?? The proper position for a crash landing
?? THe use of a seat cushion as a floatation device
?
? The serving of airline food.
?

What airline food ??


I was served what they called a 'steak' the LAST time I flew.



--
You can't have a sense of humor, if you have no sense.

"Scout" wrote in
:



"RD Sandman" wrote in message
...
"Scout" wrote in
news:jgs5q1 :



"RD Sandman" wrote in message
...
"Scout" wrote in
news:jgpnkj
:



"RD Sandman" wrote in message
...
"Michael A. Terrell" wrote in
m:


SaPeIsMa wrote:

"Mxsmanic" wrote in message
news RD Sandman writes:

The definition is a "reasonable person". And, yes, from
flight cabin announcements over the years, a goodly number
of normally "reasonable" passengers could very well have
that fear.

What part of the announcements would instill such an
irrational fear?

Let's see
THe dropping oxygen masks
The proper position for a crash landing
THe use of a seat cushion as a floatation device

The serving of airline food.

The peanuts used to be pretty good.

I always liked the almonds better.




You flew first class, I didn't....back then.

Nope, just economy. But you could still get the almonds.

Damn, all I got were the peanuts......and free drinks. Oh, well, I
assume that makes up for the peanuts.

Hell, got free drinks too. I think you could even get alcohol if you
were an adult......but there may or may not have been a small fee for
that. I want to say the fees came later, but can't say for certain
since at that time I wasn't of age and even now I'm not much of a
drinker. Heck, I've even got packs of playing cards they handed out if
you asked for them.



Yep, I remember those. Had a design of an airplane on the back.

--
It's impossible to defeat an ignorant man in argument.

William G McAdoo


Sleep well, tonight.....

RD (The Sandman)