Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site cadre.ARPA
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxj!houxm!whuxlm!akgua!mcnc!idis!cadre!geb
From: geb@cadre.UUCP
Newsgroups: net.legal
Subject: Re: NYC subway hero
Message-ID: <136@cadre.ARPA>
Date: Tue, 8-Jan-85 09:03:32 EST
Article-I.D.: cadre.136
Posted: Tue Jan  8 09:03:32 1985
Date-Received: Fri, 11-Jan-85 23:42:11 EST
References: <6842@watdaisy.UUCP> <4845@fortune.UUCP> <1322@eosp1.UUCP>
Reply-To: geb@cadre.UUCP (Gordon E. Banks)
Distribution: net
Organization: Decision Systems Lab., Univ. of Pgh.
Lines: 20
Summary: 

>It's very easy to convict or exonerate the "Subway hero" on the basis
>of what we think we know happened.  Is there any reason we can't be
>a little patient and wait for more dependable descriptions, not to
>mention the legal evidence that will be given in court?  Will the
>world come to an end if we can't pass judgment this week?
>FOR HEAVEN'S SAKE...

As the poster of the original article, my intention wasn't really
to pass judgement on this particular case, but to start a discussion
which explores the morality and legality of self-defense, prohibition
of citizens carrying firearms for self-defense, etc.  Certainly
the facts of this case aren't crystal clear, but I think we got
some really good responses anyway that started people thinking,
especially Milo's case.  Since this is just a springboard to
the hypothetical, whether or not this particular man killed his
attackers, whether they pulled out the screwdrivers, etc. can
be considered in the arguments as if they happened.