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.