Comments for tekel http://tekel.wordpress.com finding balance Fri, 06 Nov 2009 22:19:22 +0000 http://wordpress.com/ hourly 1 Comment on Tazers in Eugene by tekel http://tekel.wordpress.com/2009/11/04/tazers-in-eugene/#comment-5491 tekel Fri, 06 Nov 2009 22:19:22 +0000 http://tekel.wordpress.com/?p=664#comment-5491 That will be interesting to see- I haven't seen the video reported anywhere yet but I'll keep an eye out. That will be interesting to see- I haven’t seen the video reported anywhere yet but I’ll keep an eye out.

]]> Comment on Tazers in Eugene by zach http://tekel.wordpress.com/2009/11/04/tazers-in-eugene/#comment-5490 zach Fri, 06 Nov 2009 20:52:20 +0000 http://tekel.wordpress.com/?p=664#comment-5490 Another interesting point is being reported by KVAL news. They are saying there is a new Tasercam video recording of the new incident. Tasercam footage was key to investigate the last incident. The 9-22-09 Taser incident should have been revealed (and video released) before the 10-1-09 discussion and vote about the earlier incident. Another interesting point is being reported by KVAL news. They are saying there is a new Tasercam video recording of the new incident. Tasercam footage was key to investigate the last incident. The 9-22-09 Taser incident should have been revealed (and video released) before the 10-1-09 discussion and vote about the earlier incident.

]]> Comment on Castle Doctrine Map Update for January 2009 by Tony Yates http://tekel.wordpress.com/2009/01/24/castle-doctrine-map-update-for-january-2009/#comment-5484 Tony Yates Sun, 23 Aug 2009 22:54:54 +0000 http://tekel.wordpress.com/?p=607#comment-5484 August 24, 2009 As far as I know the Castle Doctrine Law for North Carolina is mired deep in the judicial committee in the democratic controlled legislature and is no where near passage! Check the NRA or Grass Roots North Carolina! August 24, 2009
As far as I know the Castle Doctrine Law for North Carolina is mired deep in the judicial committee in the democratic controlled legislature and is no where near passage!
Check the NRA or Grass Roots North Carolina!

]]> Comment on Sure, Tell Yourself That It’s The Ads by LS http://tekel.wordpress.com/2008/02/07/sure-tell-yourself-that-its-the-ads/#comment-5477 LS Fri, 17 Jul 2009 08:02:15 +0000 http://tekel.wordpress.com/?p=556#comment-5477 Figure this is the quickest way to let you know that the link for the article at Business Week is incorrectly written. You have an excess http// in it. Just thought I'd let you know for the sake of those who don't know how to read and write links so they can find the article too. :-) For those unsure what this means, here's the correct link: http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/08_07/b4071054390809.htm?chan=top+news_top+news+index_top+story [<em>ed by tekel</em>- right you are. Fixed the link.] Figure this is the quickest way to let you know that the link for the article at Business Week is incorrectly written. You have an excess http// in it. Just thought I’d let you know for the sake of those who don’t know how to read and write links so they can find the article too. :-)

For those unsure what this means, here’s the correct link:

http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/08_07/b4071054390809.htm?chan=top+news_top+news+index_top+story

[ed by tekel- right you are. Fixed the link.]

]]> Comment on Castle Doctrine in California? by tekel http://tekel.wordpress.com/2007/10/04/castle-doctrine-in-california/#comment-5475 tekel Tue, 07 Jul 2009 05:03:34 +0000 http://tekel.wordpress.com/2007/10/04/castle-doctrine-in-california/#comment-5475 and hey, if he had just shot them all and buried them, no dissenting witnesses! But on the other hand, it's probably unlawful to own a .44 with a 20-round clip. Er. I gotta think your story is from AZ rather than TX, because based on the stories I've seen, any landowner in TX can threaten, abuse, or shoot any trespasser for any reason or for no reason at all and no jury in the state will rule against him. It's funny in bar review class (which is ongoing right now for me) when the instructors are like "Can you shoot an intruder to protect property? NOOOOO!!!! Only in self defense!" And I have to think to myself, ok, but if you're in Texas all bets are off. and hey, if he had just shot them all and buried them, no dissenting witnesses! But on the other hand, it’s probably unlawful to own a .44 with a 20-round clip.

Er. I gotta think your story is from AZ rather than TX, because based on the stories I’ve seen, any landowner in TX can threaten, abuse, or shoot any trespasser for any reason or for no reason at all and no jury in the state will rule against him. It’s funny in bar review class (which is ongoing right now for me) when the instructors are like “Can you shoot an intruder to protect property? NOOOOO!!!! Only in self defense!” And I have to think to myself, ok, but if you’re in Texas all bets are off.

]]> Comment on Castle Doctrine in California? by miss kitty http://tekel.wordpress.com/2007/10/04/castle-doctrine-in-california/#comment-5474 miss kitty Tue, 30 Jun 2009 15:13:25 +0000 http://tekel.wordpress.com/2007/10/04/castle-doctrine-in-california/#comment-5474 its kinda funny to see some of the responses...... you shoot to eliminate the threat. if the threat is retreating, and is no longer, you cannot shoot (that is in California)..... remember the laws out there protect the suspect more then the victim... the susbect could be half way in the window and you shoot, (reasonable fear), but yet a jury will most likely side with him.... in texas or arizona, a few months ago, a rancher caught 15+ illegals on his proerty, they had destroyed some area of the ranchers fence to come to this side..... the rancher had his dog and his firearm with him. the dog barked, and he held them at gun point for a bit untill he realized they were no longer a threat (no weapons) he put his gun away and called off his dog. the dog never bit anyone, and he didnt shoot anyone. the group sued the rancher for mental distress and damages..... THEY WERE ILLEGAL and guess what THEY WON!!!!!!!!! its kinda funny to see some of the responses…… you shoot to eliminate the threat. if the threat is retreating, and is no longer, you cannot shoot (that is in California)….. remember the laws out there protect the suspect more then the victim… the susbect could be half way in the window and you shoot, (reasonable fear), but yet a jury will most likely side with him….

in texas or arizona, a few months ago, a rancher caught 15+ illegals on his proerty, they had destroyed some area of the ranchers fence to come to this side…..
the rancher had his dog and his firearm with him. the dog barked, and he held them at gun point for a bit untill he realized they were no longer a threat (no weapons) he put his gun away and called off his dog. the dog never bit anyone, and he didnt shoot anyone.
the group sued the rancher for mental distress and damages….. THEY WERE ILLEGAL and guess what THEY WON!!!!!!!!!

]]> Comment on Castle Doctrine Map Update for January 2009 by mark http://tekel.wordpress.com/2009/01/24/castle-doctrine-map-update-for-january-2009/#comment-5472 mark Thu, 11 Jun 2009 04:48:07 +0000 http://tekel.wordpress.com/?p=607#comment-5472 wich are the states with castle doctrine laws are they in red ? wich are the states with castle doctrine laws are they in red ?

]]> Comment on Castle Doctrine in California? by Rusty Shakelford http://tekel.wordpress.com/2007/10/04/castle-doctrine-in-california/#comment-5468 Rusty Shakelford Fri, 08 May 2009 04:25:30 +0000 http://tekel.wordpress.com/2007/10/04/castle-doctrine-in-california/#comment-5468 Shoot him in the back? Well I think it depends. If he took something of yours and is running away with it, hell yes. But if he is running from you, and has took nothing all you can do is chase his ass down and hold him at gunpoint until the Police show up. Shoot him in the back? Well I think it depends. If he took something of yours and is running away with it, hell yes. But if he is running from you, and has took nothing all you can do is chase his ass down and hold him at gunpoint until the Police show up.

]]> Comment on Unlock Your iPhone, Tortuous Interference With Contract? by Megan http://tekel.wordpress.com/2007/09/04/unlock-your-iphone-tortuous-interference-with-contract/#comment-5463 Megan Fri, 10 Apr 2009 14:18:57 +0000 http://tekel.wordpress.com/2007/09/04/unlock-your-iphone-tortuous-interference-with-contract/#comment-5463 Hi Tekel, Thanks for your grant of permission to link. Best, Megan Pearson Custom Publishing Hi Tekel,

Thanks for your grant of permission to link.

Best,

Megan
Pearson Custom Publishing

]]> Comment on Calling it Cracker Barrel is just asking for it by tekel http://tekel.wordpress.com/2006/10/17/calling-it-cracker-barrel-is-just-asking-for-it/#comment-5461 tekel Sun, 05 Apr 2009 22:45:43 +0000 http://tekel.wordpress.com/2006/10/17/calling-it-cracker-barrel-is-just-asking-for-it/#comment-5461 Oh, I'm sure you're right that the people who picked the name didn't do it with racist intent. I'm just ... amused ... that in this case, the derogatory connotation featured much more prominently than the actual intended meaning. It's a kind of schadenfreude: I'm laughing AT them, not WITH them. Oh, I’m sure you’re right that the people who picked the name didn’t do it with racist intent. I’m just … amused … that in this case, the derogatory connotation featured much more prominently than the actual intended meaning. It’s a kind of schadenfreude: I’m laughing AT them, not WITH them.

]]>