tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5985022.post3976496948290545580..comments2024-03-28T18:58:18.112-07:00Comments on The Turner Report: Goodman's "Castle Doctrine" bill approved by committeeRandyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05760019501046060231noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5985022.post-12285522373351558892007-04-24T20:21:00.000-07:002007-04-24T20:21:00.000-07:00That’s why the defense is an affirmative one. In ...That’s why the defense is an affirmative one. In other words, the burden is on the accused to raise and prove a self defense claim.<BR/><BR/>Are you arguing that we should do away with the right to self defense entirely (because your argument would apply to the law now just as much as to the proposed change)?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5985022.post-20334977515124112102007-04-24T17:04:00.000-07:002007-04-24T17:04:00.000-07:00Since the survivor is the only one who can still s...Since the survivor is the only one who can still speak, that inevitably makes for a one-sided story. In other words, after you kill them you can claim any reason you want and no one else will ever know for sure. Sounds like a situation ripe for abuse to me.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5985022.post-7935573823157144342007-04-23T21:26:00.000-07:002007-04-23T21:26:00.000-07:00Randy, can you quote the section of the bill that ...Randy, can you quote the section of the bill that allows people to “to blast away at people entering their property?” The actual language of the bill can be found here: http://www.senate.mo.gov/07info/pdf-bill/intro/SB62.pdf <BR/><BR/>If you actually read the bill it states that “A person may not use deadly force upon another person . . .unless he reasonably believes that such deadly force is Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com