Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
|
General Cooking (rec.food.cooking) For general food and cooking discussion. Foods of all kinds, food procurement, cooking methods and techniques, eating, etc. |
Reply |
|
LinkBack | Thread Tools | Display Modes |
Posted to rec.food.cooking
|
|||
|
|||
Unhappy 4th!
In article >,
Abe > wrote: > >> Well it wasn't a happy 4th for us! > >> > >> Our place in Texas was broken into and robbed as well as ransacked! > >> > >My solution? A double tap to the face of every scummy arsehole who wants > >to invade someone elses home. > > Unfortunately, unless you can PROVE that your life was in imminent > danger, and no, the break-in alone isn't enough to prove that, you're > looking at a very long time in jail. > > Sad but true. I guess it's time to ask, what is a "double tap"? Obviously it is force, but is it lethal or non-lethal? |
Posted to rec.food.cooking
|
|||
|
|||
Unhappy 4th!
Dan Abel wrote:
> In article >, > Abe > wrote: > >>>> Well it wasn't a happy 4th for us! >>>> >>>> Our place in Texas was broken into and robbed as well as ransacked! >>>> >>> My solution? A double tap to the face of every scummy arsehole who >>> wants to invade someone elses home. >> >> Unfortunately, unless you can PROVE that your life was in imminent >> danger, and no, the break-in alone isn't enough to prove that, you're >> looking at a very long time in jail. >> >> Sad but true. > > I guess it's time to ask, what is a "double tap"? Obviously it is > force, but is it lethal or non-lethal? It's double lethal. -- Dave www.davebbq.com |
Posted to rec.food.cooking
|
|||
|
|||
Unhappy 4th!
Dan Abel said...
> In article >, > Abe > wrote: > >> >> Well it wasn't a happy 4th for us! >> >> >> >> Our place in Texas was broken into and robbed as well as ransacked! >> >> >> >My solution? A double tap to the face of every scummy arsehole who >> >wants to invade someone elses home. >> >> Unfortunately, unless you can PROVE that your life was in imminent >> danger, and no, the break-in alone isn't enough to prove that, you're >> looking at a very long time in jail. >> >> Sad but true. > > I guess it's time to ask, what is a "double tap"? Obviously it is > force, but is it lethal or non-lethal? A double-tap is a rapid-fire two rounds from a handgun. As mentioned above, self-defense doesn't include lethal force for defending "things," rather defending the lives of yourself and those around you from imminent death, AS A LAST RESORT!!! Andy NRA Life 007 |
Posted to rec.food.cooking
|
|||
|
|||
Unhappy 4th!
MOMPEAGRAM wrote:
> > Well it wasn't a happy 4th for us! > > Our place in Texas was broken into and robbed as well as ransacked! The time to commit a crime is when the police are overloaded with other activities. Holidays and major natural disasters (earthquakes, forest fires, etc.) are examples. The time to commit a crime with a gun is when there's lots of other explosions to cover up the sound of gunfire, New Year's Eve and 4th of July in the U.S. |
Posted to rec.food.cooking
|
|||
|
|||
Unhappy 4th!
Andy wrote:
> Dan Abel said... > >> In article >, >> Abe > wrote: >> >>>>> Well it wasn't a happy 4th for us! >>>>> >>>>> Our place in Texas was broken into and robbed as well as >>>>> ransacked! >>>>> >>>> My solution? A double tap to the face of every scummy arsehole who >>>> wants to invade someone elses home. >>> >>> Unfortunately, unless you can PROVE that your life was in imminent >>> danger, and no, the break-in alone isn't enough to prove that, >>> you're looking at a very long time in jail. >>> >>> Sad but true. >> >> I guess it's time to ask, what is a "double tap"? Obviously it is >> force, but is it lethal or non-lethal? > > > A double-tap is a rapid-fire two rounds from a handgun. > > As mentioned above, self-defense doesn't include lethal force for > defending "things," rather defending the lives of yourself and those > around you from imminent death, AS A LAST RESORT!!! If someone I don't recognize breaks into my house or business when I'm present, I'll be in fear of my life. That's all that's required. I don't have to 'prove' it, I just have to say it. -- Dave www.davebbq.com |
Posted to rec.food.cooking
|
|||
|
|||
Unhappy 4th!
"hahabogus" > wrote in message ... > "MOMPEAGRAM" > wrote in news:f6j17l$r6k$1 > @news.albasani.net: > >> Well it wasn't a happy 4th for us! >> >> Our place in Texas was broken into and robbed as well as ransacked! >> >> >> > > So sorry to hear of this.... > Thanks for the sentiment -- Helen in FERGUS/HARLINGEN |
Posted to rec.food.cooking
|
|||
|
|||
Unhappy 4th!
"kilikini" > wrote in message ... > MOMPEAGRAM wrote: >> Well it wasn't a happy 4th for us! >> >> Our place in Texas was broken into and robbed as well as ransacked! > > Oh, how lovely. :-( I am so sorry to hear this. Have you made a > list of > what is missing? It may be difficult to determine, I know. When I was > broken into, I'd still find things missing up to a few weeks later. I > just > kept calling the police to add the items to the report. > > Good luck and I hope they catch the guys who did this. > > kili > > There is nothing we can do till we go down in November. It's a 5 day drive so not something we can just do. I know they stole the air conditioner and the park manager said it's a mess. They broke in to our shed too and I don't know what's been taken. Unfortunately we didn't insure the place. We were going to do it this year. So we are stuck. -- Helen in FERGUS/HARLINGEN |
Posted to rec.food.cooking
|
|||
|
|||
Unhappy 4th!
"Sheldon" > wrote in message ups.com... > On Jul 5, 11:44?am, "kilikini" > wrote: >> MOMPEAGRAM wrote: >> > Well it wasn't a happy 4th for us! >> >> > Our place in Texas was broken into and robbed as well as ransacked! >> >> Oh, how lovely. :-( I am so sorry to hear this. Have you made a >> list of >> what is missing? It may be difficult to determine, I know. When I was >> broken into, I'd still find things missing up to a few weeks later. I >> just >> kept calling the police to add the items to the report. >> >> Good luck and I hope they catch the guys who did this. > > Geeze, that sucks. > > Chances are they won't catch the thieves, not unless there was > anything valuable and out of the ordinary taken, something that would > send up a red flag when it was attempted to be disposed of. Everyone > should take lots of pictures of everything they own, all valuables, > room by room, wall by wall, open each closet, each dresser drawer, > every cabinet... basement, attic, garage, everything outdoors, even > inside your car trunk. Then upload all your pics to a photo website, > there are plenty of free ones. And take tons of pictures, with > digicams it's easy, it's free. > > I hope they catch the thief, but don't hold your breath... your stuff > is probably all gone by now, traded for drugs. > > Sheldon > That's what we do but the dumbest was not listening to my inner voice to insure before we left. And I know it was dumb! -- Helen in FERGUS/HARLINGEN |
Posted to rec.food.cooking
|
|||
|
|||
Unhappy 4th!
"Ophelia" > wrote in message ... > > "Sheldon" > wrote in message > ups.com... >> On Jul 5, 12:25?pm, Dave Smith > wrote: >>> MOMPEAGRAM wrote: >>> >>> > Well it wasn't a happy 4th for us! >>> >>> > Our place in Texas was broken into and robbed as well as ransacked! > > Oh Helen I have only just seen this! I am so sorry > Thanks Ophelia. I won't know how sorry I am till we go down in NOvember. We just can't drop everything and drive 10 days for this. -- Helen in FERGUS/HARLINGEN |
Posted to rec.food.cooking
|
|||
|
|||
Unhappy 4th!
Dave Bugg said...
> Andy wrote: >> Dan Abel said... >> >>> In article >, >>> Abe > wrote: >>> >>>>>> Well it wasn't a happy 4th for us! >>>>>> >>>>>> Our place in Texas was broken into and robbed as well as >>>>>> ransacked! >>>>>> >>>>> My solution? A double tap to the face of every scummy arsehole who >>>>> wants to invade someone elses home. >>>> >>>> Unfortunately, unless you can PROVE that your life was in imminent >>>> danger, and no, the break-in alone isn't enough to prove that, >>>> you're looking at a very long time in jail. >>>> >>>> Sad but true. >>> >>> I guess it's time to ask, what is a "double tap"? Obviously it is >>> force, but is it lethal or non-lethal? >> >> >> A double-tap is a rapid-fire two rounds from a handgun. >> >> As mentioned above, self-defense doesn't include lethal force for >> defending "things," rather defending the lives of yourself and those >> around you from imminent death, AS A LAST RESORT!!! > > If someone I don't recognize breaks into my house or business when I'm > present, I'll be in fear of my life. That's all that's required. I don't > have to 'prove' it, I just have to say it. NOT GOOD ENOUGH. How fast can you evaluate a threat??? How do you REACT to a threat? "STOP!!!"? In your home or your business? I'd say you're "I just have to say it" would qualify you for prison time. Suppose it was an Alzheimers person thinking he's breaking into his OWN home. Would you be right in using lethal force? NOPE. But you'd shoot first and find out later he was your next door neighbor. Ya BUM!!! Andy |
Posted to rec.food.cooking
|
|||
|
|||
Reheating ham
In article >,
Becca > wrote: > Peter A wrote: > > > In article >, > > says... > > > >>The hams I buy are Smithfield or Cooks. I look for the spiral sliced > >>hames, but sometimes they are not available. Once, I bought a Cooks ham > >>that was not spiral sliced, and it was not cooked either, I had to bake > >>it. Like Steve said, "Ready to cook" was printed on the label. > >> > >>Becca > >> > > > > > > I strongly doubt that you ever had a raw spiral sliced ham. > > The store was out of spriral sliced hams, so I took what I could find. > This has me wondering if I eat too much ham. LOL > > Becca I just purchase whole hams and have the meat cutters in the back cut them into steaks for me. They do it for free. They take the back 6" of the bonier section and cut that in 1/2 lengthwise for use in making ham stock. -- Peace, Om Remove _ to validate e-mails. "My mother never saw the irony in calling me a Son of a bitch" -- Jack Nicholson |
Posted to rec.food.cooking
|
|||
|
|||
Unhappy 4th!
In article >, Andy <q> wrote:
> Caller ID is a the familiar third service (incoming # ID) that's only > useful purpose these days is for Caller Photo ID at a glance, seen on > advanced cell phones. If it's a pay-for service, it's hardly worth the > money. We pay for ours on the landline, and it's well worth it. I guess YMMV. |
Posted to rec.food.cooking
|
|||
|
|||
Unhappy 4th!
In article >,
"MOMPEAGRAM" > wrote: > Well it wasn't a happy 4th for us! > > Our place in Texas was broken into and robbed as well as ransacked! I'm sorry. :-( -- Peace, Om Remove _ to validate e-mails. "My mother never saw the irony in calling me a Son of a bitch" -- Jack Nicholson |
Posted to rec.food.cooking
|
|||
|
|||
Unhappy 4th!
In article >,
Abe > wrote: > >> Well it wasn't a happy 4th for us! > >> > >> Our place in Texas was broken into and robbed as well as ransacked! > >> > >My solution? A double tap to the face of every scummy arsehole who wants > >to invade someone elses home. > > Unfortunately, unless you can PROVE that your life was in imminent > danger, and no, the break-in alone isn't enough to prove that, you're > looking at a very long time in jail. > > Sad but true. Not in Texas... You may want to check the Florida laws. Many gun laws are modeled on some originally made in Florida. My google search was "Texas Deadly Force laws". SUBCHAPTER D. PROTECTION OF PROPERTY 9.41. PROTECTION OF ONE'S OWN PROPERTY. (a) A person in lawful possession of land or tangible, movable property is justified in using force against another when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to prevent or terminate the other's trespass on the land or unlawful interference with the property. (b) A person unlawfully dispossessed of land or tangible, movable property by another is justified in using force against the other when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to reenter the land or recover the property if the actor uses the force immediately or in fresh pursuit after the dispossession and: (1) the actor reasonably believes the other had no claim of right when he dispossessed the actor; or (2) the other accomplished the dispossession by using force, threat, or fraud against the actor. Acts 1973, 63rd Leg., p. 883, ch. 399, 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1974. Amended by Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 900, 1.01, eff. Sept. 1, 1994. 9.42. DEADLY FORCE TO PROTECT PROPERTY. A person is justified in using deadly force against another to protect land or tangible, movable property: (1) if he would be justified in using force against the other under Section 9.41; and (2) when and to the degree he reasonably believes the deadly force is immediately necessary: (A) to prevent the other's imminent commission of arson, burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, theft during the nighttime, or criminal mischief during the nighttime; or (B) to prevent the other who is fleeing immediately after committing burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, or theft during the nighttime from escaping with the property; and (3) he reasonably believes that: (A) the land or property cannot be protected or recovered by any other means; or (B) the use of force other than deadly force to protect or recover the land or property would expose the actor or another to a substantial risk of death or serious bodily injury. Acts 1973, 63rd Leg., p. 883, ch. 399, 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1974. Amended by Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 900, 1.01, eff. Sept. 1, 1994. 9.43. PROTECTION OF THIRD PERSON'S PROPERTY. A person is justified in using force or deadly force against another to protect land or tangible, movable property of a third person if, under the circumstances as he reasonably believes them to be, the actor would be justified under Section 9.41 or 9.42 in using force or deadly force to protect his own land or property and: (1) the actor reasonably believes the unlawful interference constitutes attempted or consummated theft of or criminal mischief to the tangible, movable property; or (2) the actor reasonably believes that: (A) the third person has requested his protection of the land or property; (B) he has a legal duty to protect the third person's land or property; or (C) the third person whose land or property he uses force or deadly force to protect is the actor's spouse, parent, or child, resides with the actor, or is under the actor's care. Acts 1973, 63rd Leg., p. 883, ch. 399, 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1974. Amended by Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 900, 1.01, eff. Sept. 1, 1994. -- Peace, Om Remove _ to validate e-mails. "My mother never saw the irony in calling me a Son of a bitch" -- Jack Nicholson |
Posted to rec.food.cooking
|
|||
|
|||
Unhappy 4th!
Andy wrote:
> Dave Bugg said... > >> Andy wrote: >>> Dan Abel said... >>> >>>> In article >, >>>> Abe > wrote: >>>> >>>>>>> Well it wasn't a happy 4th for us! >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Our place in Texas was broken into and robbed as well as >>>>>>> ransacked! >>>>>>> >>>>>> My solution? A double tap to the face of every scummy arsehole >>>>>> who wants to invade someone elses home. >>>>> >>>>> Unfortunately, unless you can PROVE that your life was in imminent >>>>> danger, and no, the break-in alone isn't enough to prove that, >>>>> you're looking at a very long time in jail. >>>>> >>>>> Sad but true. >>>> >>>> I guess it's time to ask, what is a "double tap"? Obviously it is >>>> force, but is it lethal or non-lethal? >>> >>> >>> A double-tap is a rapid-fire two rounds from a handgun. >>> >>> As mentioned above, self-defense doesn't include lethal force for >>> defending "things," rather defending the lives of yourself and those >>> around you from imminent death, AS A LAST RESORT!!! >> >> If someone I don't recognize breaks into my house or business when >> I'm present, I'll be in fear of my life. That's all that's required. >> I don't have to 'prove' it, I just have to say it. > > > NOT GOOD ENOUGH. > > How fast can you evaluate a threat??? Fairly quickly. How do you REACT to a threat? With the force necessary to neutralize it. > "STOP!!!"? In your home or your business? I'd say you're "I just have > to say it" would qualify you for prison time. Nope. Now, please, do you best to concoct a ridiculous scenario to try and make a point. > Suppose it was an Alzheimers person thinking he's breaking into his > OWN home. OK. And let's also suppose that it's a ne'er-do-well punk. > Would you be right in using lethal force? NOPE. For the punk or the alzheimers patient? Are you suggesting that it's ok to use other levels of force against an alzheimers patient so long as it's NOT lethal force? Well, shame on you!!!!! As for myself, I'd try to calm the alheimers patient down and call the police to help him out. I'm sorry to hear that you wouldn't be able to tell the difference between a ne'er-do-well punk or when in the presence of a confused senior citizen. I'm sure that spending time visiting at a long-term care facility and at your local jail will help you solve that problem. In the meantime, I suggest that you refuse to take action when faced with the scenario that you painted. You don't want to folks to know that you would beat up a confused old man or woman. > But you'd > shoot first and find out later he was your next door neighbor. You don't know your next door neighbors? Man, Andy, you need to get out and get to know the folks in your neighborhood. -- Dave www.davebbq.com |
Posted to rec.food.cooking
|
|||
|
|||
Unhappy 4th!
Sheldon wrote:
> > > > my sons school. They knew we were going to be away for the March break. We > > used to get a lot of telephone calls with hang-ups as soon as we answered. > > We got a new and unlisted number after that, but now that we have call > > display we are listed again. > > What's "call display" and what does that have to do with having an > unpublished number? "Call display" is "caller ID". It shows you the number that is calling your phone. It used to be quite common for people casing a house for a burglary to call to see if anyone is home. Call display/caller ID was also a great way to deter people from making harassing phone calls. Having a number unlisted decreases the chances of someone casing your house to call to check if you are home. Once I got the call display I didn't feel the need to maintain an unlisted number. |
Posted to rec.food.cooking
|
|||
|
|||
Unhappy 4th!
On Jul 5, 2:36?pm, "MOMPEAGRAM" > wrote:
> "Sheldon" > wrote in message > > ups.com... > > > > > On Jul 5, 11:44?am, "kilikini" > wrote: > >> MOMPEAGRAM wrote: > >> > Well it wasn't a happy 4th for us! > > >> > Our place in Texas was broken into and robbed as well as ransacked! > > >> Oh, how lovely. :-( I am so sorry to hear this. Have you made a > >> list of > >> what is missing? It may be difficult to determine, I know. When I was > >> broken into, I'd still find things missing up to a few weeks later. I > >> just > >> kept calling the police to add the items to the report. > > >> Good luck and I hope they catch the guys who did this. > > > Geeze, that sucks. > > > Chances are they won't catch the thieves, not unless there was > > anything valuable and out of the ordinary taken, something that would > > send up a red flag when it was attempted to be disposed of. Everyone > > should take lots of pictures of everything they own, all valuables, > > room by room, wall by wall, open each closet, each dresser drawer, > > every cabinet... basement, attic, garage, everything outdoors, even > > inside your car trunk. Then upload all your pics to a photo website, > > there are plenty of free ones. And take tons of pictures, with > > digicams it's easy, it's free. > > > I hope they catch the thief, but don't hold your breath... your stuff > > is probably all gone by now, traded for drugs. > > > Sheldon > > That's what we do but the dumbest was not listening to my inner voice to > insure before we left. And I know it was dumb! What do you mean by "insure before we left"? So now I'm assuming you rent. Everyone who rents needs renter's insurance, from day one. Renter's insurance is very inexpensive (less than $1/day). It's very good that you didn't take out a policy just before you left on your trip. Had you done that you very likely would have been arrested on suspician of commiting or orchestrating that burglary. Btw, the vast majority of rental burglaries are inside jobs... odds are 999 to 1 that you or someone in your household knows the burglar(s). The fact that the burglary just happened to occur during a planned trip increases those odds a thousand fold. Right now (today!) call your insurance company and take out a renter's policy... your auto ins company can handle it. No one should ever advertise that they are going away (especially not on the net), tell your friends after you return. Sheldon |
Posted to rec.food.cooking
|
|||
|
|||
Unhappy 4th!
On Jul 5, 12:50?pm, hahabogus > wrote:
> Sheldon > wrote roups.com: > > > > > > > On Jul 5, 12:25?pm, Dave Smith > wrote: > >> MOMPEAGRAM wrote: > > >> > Well it wasn't a happy 4th for us! > > >> > Our place in Texas was broken into and robbed as well as ransacked! > > >> That is unfortunate. It leaves you feeling violated doesn't it. My > >> house was broken into about 15 years ago. We were away on a skiing > >> vacation at the time. The police caught the burglars. It was a bunch > >> of teenagers from my sons school. They knew we were going to be away > >> for the March break. We used to get a lot of telephone calls with > >> hang-ups as soon as we answered. We got a new and unlisted number > >> after that, but now that we have call display we are listed again. > > > What's "call display" and what does that have to do with having an > > unpublished number? > > > Sheldon > > You can have call display and have your number blocked from showing on > other's phones...well you can up here. So sayth the telephone Company > employeee. There's the feature where you push a series of numbers and > block your number from showing on a call by call bases or you can have > total number blocking at various levels of serverity on all calls you > make. That doesn't stop you from seeing who is calling you...excepting > others can do the same. You can also get label service where a number not > necessarily yours is displayed (businesses do it all the time). When they > want you to call back at a 800 number or whatever. That still doesn't explain the part about the unpublished number... I don't see how activationg call display, or not, has any bearing on the unpublished number. My number is unpublished. I also have what you call "call display" (here it's called "anonymous caller service"). I can turn it on or off by pressing a few keys. When I turn it on all callers must turn off their anonymous caller service so that I can view who's calling on my caller ID, otherwise their call will not be completed. Friendly callers don't mind identifying themselves. But the anonymous caller service sure cuts down on telemarketers, and especially those awful recorded calls. But this is a totally separate service from my unpublished number service... having one has no bearing on having the other. Sheldon |
Posted to rec.food.cooking
|
|||
|
|||
Unhappy 4th!
On Thu, 05 Jul 2007 08:50:15 -0700, Abe > wrote:
>>> Well it wasn't a happy 4th for us! >>> >>> Our place in Texas was broken into and robbed as well as ransacked! >>> >>My solution? A double tap to the face of every scummy arsehole who wants >>to invade someone elses home. > >Unfortunately, unless you can PROVE that your life was in imminent >danger, and no, the break-in alone isn't enough to prove that, you're >looking at a very long time in jail. > >Sad but true. I like the old days better where an individual could protect his property as well as his life. A lot of states are getting away from the "Duty to retreat" aspect of self defense so its a step in the right direction. |
Posted to rec.food.cooking
|
|||
|
|||
Unhappy 4th!
On Jul 5, 4:32?pm, Dave Smith > wrote:
> Sheldon wrote: > > > > my sons school. They knew we were going to be away for the March break. We > > > used to get a lot of telephone calls with hang-ups as soon as we answered. > > > We got a new and unlisted number after that, but now that we have call > > > display we are listed again. > > > What's "call display" and what does that have to do with having an > > unpublished number? > > "Call display" is "caller ID". It shows you the number that is calling your > phone. It used to be quite common for people casing a house for a burglary > to call to see if anyone is home. Call display/caller ID was also a great > way to deter people from making harassing phone calls. Having a number > unlisted decreases the chances of someone casing your house to call to > check if you are home. Once I got the call display I didn't feel the need > to maintain an unlisted number. But then your name, address, and phone number is published for everyone to see. I don't see the point in having call display if your info is published... that's a false sense of security. |
Posted to rec.food.cooking
|
|||
|
|||
Unhappy 4th!
Dan Abel wrote:
> In article >, Andy <q> wrote: > > >> Caller ID is a the familiar third service (incoming # ID) that's only >> useful purpose these days is for Caller Photo ID at a glance, seen on >> advanced cell phones. If it's a pay-for service, it's hardly worth the >> money. > > > We pay for ours on the landline, and it's well worth it. I guess YMMV. I'm too cheap to pay for that service, and in fact don't believe in paying more for an unlisted number. I solve most of my phone problems by having the phone listed in my dog's name. Works for us. |
Posted to rec.food.cooking
|
|||
|
|||
Unhappy 4th!
On Thu, 5 Jul 2007 11:02:44 -0400, "MOMPEAGRAM"
> wrote: >Well it wasn't a happy 4th for us! > >Our place in Texas was broken into and robbed as well as ransacked! That sounds like a patriotic thing to do on the 4th of July, especially in the state where our president comes from. Well, come to think of it, Bush has been robbing and ransacking everyone in the USA ever since he became president. Strange coincidence !!!! Ed N |
Posted to rec.food.cooking
|
|||
|
|||
Unhappy 4th!
|
Posted to rec.food.cooking
|
|||
|
|||
Unhappy 4th!
Abe > wrote in
: >>>> Well it wasn't a happy 4th for us! >>>> >>>> Our place in Texas was broken into and robbed as well as ransacked! >>>> >>>My solution? A double tap to the face of every scummy arsehole who >>>wants to invade someone elses home. >> > Actually, I revise my statement. It really varies quite a bit from > state to state. I should have done a little more reading before I > posted. For example, here are the relevant sections of Illinois law: > > ARTICLE 7. JUSTIFIABLE USE OF FORCE; EXONERATION > > (720 ILCS 5/7-1) (from Ch. 38, par. 7-1) > Sec. 7-1. Use of force in defense of person. > (a) However, he is justified in the use of force which is intended > or likely to cause death or great bodily harm only if he reasonably > believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or > great bodily harm to himself or another, or the commission of a > forcible felony. > > (720 ILCS 5/7-2) (from Ch. 38, par. 7-2) > Sec. 7-2. Use of force in defense of dwelling. > (a) However, he is justified in the use of force which is intended > or likely to cause death or great bodily harm only if: > (1) The entry is made or attempted in a violent, > riotous, or tumultuous manner, and he reasonably believes that such > force is necessary to prevent an assault upon, or offer of personal > violence to, him or another then in the dwelling, or > (2) He reasonably believes that such force is > necessary to prevent the commission of a felony in the dwelling. > > (720 ILCS 5/7-3) (from Ch. 38, par. 7-3) > Sec. 7-3. Use of force in defense of other property. > (a) However, he is justified in the use of force which is intended > or likely to cause death or great bodily harm only if he reasonably > believes that such force is necessary to prevent the commission of a > forcible felony. > Ahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh!!! Commonsense prevails :-) -- Peter Lucas Brisbane Australia "People sleep safely in their beds because rough men stand ready in the night to do violence to those who would do them harm" -- George Orwell |
Posted to rec.food.cooking
|
|||
|
|||
Unhappy 4th!
Dan Abel > wrote in
: > In article >, > Abe > wrote: > >> >> Well it wasn't a happy 4th for us! >> >> >> >> Our place in Texas was broken into and robbed as well as >> >> ransacked! >> >> >> >My solution? A double tap to the face of every scummy arsehole who >> >wants to invade someone elses home. >> >> Unfortunately, unless you can PROVE that your life was in imminent >> danger, and no, the break-in alone isn't enough to prove that, you're >> looking at a very long time in jail. >> >> Sad but true. > > I guess it's time to ask, what is a "double tap"? Obviously it is > force, but is it lethal or non-lethal? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double_tap Once you learn it, it becomes a natural thing to do :-) -- Peter Lucas Brisbane Australia "People sleep safely in their beds because rough men stand ready in the night to do violence to those who would do them harm" -- George Orwell |
Posted to rec.food.cooking
|
|||
|
|||
Unhappy 4th!
Andy <q> wrote in :
>> >> I guess it's time to ask, what is a "double tap"? Obviously it is >> force, but is it lethal or non-lethal? > > > A double-tap is a rapid-fire two rounds from a handgun. > > As mentioned above, self-defense doesn't include lethal force for > defending "things," rather defending the lives of yourself and those > around you from imminent death, AS A LAST RESORT!!! > And how will you know if/or when lives around you are in imminet danger? Wait till the home-invader actually does harm to someone?? You might wait. I won't hesitate. -- Peter Lucas Brisbane Australia "People sleep safely in their beds because rough men stand ready in the night to do violence to those who would do them harm" -- George Orwell |
Posted to rec.food.cooking
|
|||
|
|||
Unhappy 4th!
On Jul 5, 1:17 pm, Mark Thorson > wrote:
> MOMPEAGRAM wrote: > > > Well it wasn't a happy 4th for us! > > > Our place in Texas was broken into and robbed as well as ransacked! > > The time to commit a crime is when the police > are overloaded with other activities. Holidays > and major natural disasters (earthquakes, forest > fires, etc.) are examples. > > The time to commit a crime with a gun is when > there's lots of other explosions to cover up > the sound of gunfire, New Year's Eve and > 4th of July in the U.S. Here in St. Louis, we have a real problem with folks in low income neighborhoods firing guns up into the air to celebrate the New Year. Every year for several days before New Years Eve they run commercials discouraging it. The bullets don't just stay up. They eventually come down. --Bryan |
Posted to rec.food.cooking
|
|||
|
|||
Unhappy 4th!
Bobo Bonobo® > wrote:
>Here in St. Louis, we have a real problem with folks in low income >neighborhoods firing guns up into the air to celebrate the New Year. >Every year for several days before New Years Eve they run commercials >discouraging it. The bullets don't just stay up. They eventually >come down. Arizona now has "Shannon's Law" making that a crime. It's named after one of the victims, who was killed just standing in her backyard. --Blair |
Posted to rec.food.cooking
|
|||
|
|||
Unhappy 4th!
Sheldon wrote:
> That still doesn't explain the part about the unpublished number... I > don't see how activationg call display, or not, has any bearing on the > unpublished number. The reason for the unpublished number was so that anyone wanting to keep calling my number to see if I was home or not would not know the number. |
Posted to rec.food.cooking
|
|||
|
|||
Unhappy 4th!
Sheldon wrote:
> > > But then your name, address, and phone number is published for > everyone to see. I don't see the point in having call display if your > info is published... that's a false sense of security. Caller ID has ended a lot of nuisance calling. People who used to make crank phone calls soon learned they were no longer anonymous. |
Posted to rec.food.cooking
|
|||
|
|||
Unhappy 4th!
"Dave Smith" > wrote in message ... > Sheldon wrote: >> That still doesn't explain the part about the unpublished number... I >> don't see how activationg call display, or not, has any bearing on the >> unpublished number. > > > The reason for the unpublished number was so that anyone wanting to keep > calling my number to see if I was home or not would not know the number. It also limits the suspects, as well, because only those you gave the number to would know where to call you. With caller ID, most teens who think they are savvy enough to get away with casing you, usually forget to block their own numbers, so you have a record (at least on my phone) of calls received and from whom. FBS had a stalker and that's how we knew who it was, an old girlfriend, all of 17 at the time, who was harassing him since the breakup. Like, yeah, I'll make your life miserable until we get back together..........one little visit from the police and lo and behold, no more calls in the middle of the night. -g |
Posted to rec.food.cooking
|
|||
|
|||
Unhappy 4th!
Dave Smith wrote:
> Sheldon wrote: > > > But then your name, address, and phone number is published for > > everyone to see. I don't see the point in having call display if your > > info is published... that's a false sense of security. > > Caller ID has ended a lot of nuisance calling. People who used to make > crank phone calls soon learned they were no longer anonymous. Crank calls aren't nearly so serious as being published permitting the crooks and nutcases from knowing where you live... and today most crank calls are computer generated anyway (just a roulette wheel), there is no real malice or intent directed at a particular individual, telemarketers and crank callers are equal opportunity pests. I really don't see any security connection between caller ID and being unpublished; apples and oranges. Having to make a choice I'd always choose unpublished, I can hang up on a crank call but it's not so easy to prevent someone who knows how to physically find you from menacing you in a real way. Telemarketers/cranks are not seeking to burglarize your house. I've always maintained an unpublished number, since long before caller ID was a dream. Anyone who gives up their unpublished status because they think caller ID is a substitute is a fool. Sheldon |
Posted to rec.food.cooking
|
|||
|
|||
Unhappy 4th!
In article >,
PeterLucas > wrote: > > I guess it's time to ask, what is a "double tap"? Obviously it is > > force, but is it lethal or non-lethal? > > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double_tap > > > Once you learn it, it becomes a natural thing to do :-) > > > > > -- > Peter Lucas Triple tap is even better... 2 to center of mass and one to the head in case they are wearing body armor. I've seen more than one cop practicing those at the pistol range. It's almost scary. -- Peace, Om Remove _ to validate e-mails. "My mother never saw the irony in calling me a Son of a bitch" -- Jack Nicholson |
Posted to rec.food.cooking
|
|||
|
|||
Unhappy 4th!
In article . com>,
Bobo Bonobo(R) > wrote: > On Jul 5, 1:17 pm, Mark Thorson > wrote: > > MOMPEAGRAM wrote: > > > > > Well it wasn't a happy 4th for us! > > > > > Our place in Texas was broken into and robbed as well as ransacked! > > > > The time to commit a crime is when the police > > are overloaded with other activities. Holidays > > and major natural disasters (earthquakes, forest > > fires, etc.) are examples. > > > > The time to commit a crime with a gun is when > > there's lots of other explosions to cover up > > the sound of gunfire, New Year's Eve and > > 4th of July in the U.S. > > Here in St. Louis, we have a real problem with folks in low income > neighborhoods firing guns up into the air to celebrate the New Year. > Every year for several days before New Years Eve they run commercials > discouraging it. The bullets don't just stay up. They eventually > come down. > > --Bryan They usually come down within seconds, but it's still a very bad practice. :-P I may consider it with blanks but never with live rounds. It's idiots like that that give responsible gun owners a bad rap. -- Peace, Om Remove _ to validate e-mails. "My mother never saw the irony in calling me a Son of a bitch" -- Jack Nicholson |
Posted to rec.food.cooking
|
|||
|
|||
Unhappy 4th!
Omelet wrote:
> Triple tap is even better... > > 2 to center of mass and one to the head in case they are wearing body > armor. I've seen more than one cop practicing those at the pistol > range. > > It's almost scary. Hmm, David has just explained that.. in detail!! I am about to make dinner too |
Posted to rec.food.cooking
|
|||
|
|||
Unhappy 4th!
On Fri, 06 Jul 2007 07:51:51 -0700, Sheldon > wrote:
> >Crank calls aren't nearly so serious as being published permitting the >crooks and nutcases from knowing where you live... and today most >crank calls are computer generated anyway (just a roulette wheel), >there is no real malice or intent directed at a particular individual, >telemarketers and crank callers are equal opportunity pests. I really >don't see any security connection between caller ID and being >unpublished; apples and oranges. Having to make a choice I'd always >choose unpublished, I can hang up on a crank call but it's not so easy >to prevent someone who knows how to physically find you from menacing >you in a real way. Telemarketers/cranks are not seeking to burglarize >your house. I've always maintained an unpublished number, since long >before caller ID was a dream. Anyone who gives up their unpublished >status because they think caller ID is a substitute is a fool. Oh, good grief! Does the word paranoia ring a bell? -- History is a vast early warning system Norman Cousins |
Posted to rec.food.cooking
|
|||
|
|||
Unhappy 4th!
In article >,
"Ophelia" > wrote: > Omelet wrote: > > Triple tap is even better... > > > > 2 to center of mass and one to the head in case they are wearing body > > armor. I've seen more than one cop practicing those at the pistol > > range. > > > > It's almost scary. > > Hmm, David has just explained that.. in detail!! > > I am about to make dinner too Relax. :-) You are not a criminal so you will never have to worry about it! -- Peace, Om Remove _ to validate e-mails. "My mother never saw the irony in calling me a Son of a bitch" -- Jack Nicholson |
Posted to rec.food.cooking
|
|||
|
|||
Unhappy 4th!
Omelet wrote:
> In article >, > "Ophelia" > wrote: > >> Omelet wrote: >>> Triple tap is even better... >>> >>> 2 to center of mass and one to the head in case they are wearing >>> body armor. I've seen more than one cop practicing those at the >>> pistol range. >>> >>> It's almost scary. >> >> Hmm, David has just explained that.. in detail!! >> >> I am about to make dinner too > > Relax. :-) > > You are not a criminal so you will never have to worry about it! <G> |
Posted to rec.food.cooking
|
|||
|
|||
Unhappy 4th!
"Virginia Tadrzynski" > wrote in message > > FBS had a stalker and that's how we knew who it was, an old girlfriend, > all of 17 at the time, who was harassing him since the breakup. Like, > yeah, I'll make your life miserable until we get back > together..........one little visit from the police and lo and behold, no > more calls in the middle of the night. > -g Similar situation some years ago when we moved from Philly to CT. Caller ID was not invented yet and we got lots of hang up calls. They stopped abruptly when the kids parents got the phone bill listing all those long distance calls. |
Posted to rec.food.cooking
|
|||
|
|||
Reheating ham
"Steve Wertz" > wrote in message ... > On Wed, 4 Jul 2007 19:11:16 -0700, Kent wrote: > >> I looked for instructions like that on their site and didn't find them. >> The >> above URL does give instructions about cooking a raw ham. It isn't at all >> clear on their product list "what cooked and is what isn't". The bottom >> line >> is that you should cook raw ham to an internal temp. of about 155-160F. >> You >> really can't do that with a 250F oven unless you're willing to sit about >> a >> very long time. Sorry for the confusion. > > Plus this term into Google: "Focus on Ham". > > Then after you read it, come back and revise or clarify > everything you've said. > > -sw > > From the site: "TIMETABLE FOR COOKING HAM NOTE: Set oven temperature to 325 °F. Both cook-before-eating cured and fresh hams should be cooked to 160 °F. Reheat cooked hams packaged in USDA-inspected plants to 140 °F and all others to 165 °F." One doesn't cook an uncooked ham at 250F, and one does cook it to 155-160F. Kent |
Reply |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
Food for Reheating Later | General Cooking | |||
Reheating After Freezing | Sourdough | |||
reheating ribs | Barbecue | |||
Reheating mash! | General Cooking | |||
reheating tri-tip | Barbecue |