Census Civil Disobedience

[MaineShark]

About a week ago, a Free Stater lady who recently moved here was home alone.  Two census workers came to her door after dark and started pounding on her door and SHOUTING at her.  She was, not surprisingly, taken aback.  She called her husband, quite upset, and considered calling 9-1-1.  She says this was the ninth time they had come to her house.  On a previous visit, a census worker sat in his car in their driveway for an HOUR.

In New Hampshire she would be completely justified in shooting the man through the door and then calling the police.

This is, simply, not true!  We don't want to people to think that they can move to NH and do that.

Of course... you need to get your "Shoot Annoying People Permit".

By that you mean, "you need to become a cop," right?

Joe

[Jim Johnson]

About a week ago, a Free Stater lady who recently moved here was home alone.  Two census workers came to her door after dark and started pounding on her door and SHOUTING at her.  She was, not surprisingly, taken aback.  She called her husband, quite upset, and considered calling 9-1-1.  She says this was the ninth time they had come to her house.  On a previous visit, a census worker sat in his car in their driveway for an HOUR.

In New Hampshire she would be completely justified in shooting the man through the door and then calling the police.

This is, simply, not true!  We don't want to people to think that they can move to NH and do that.

I'm sorry, I should have said, "In New Hampshire, accepting Manchester and Concord, where the police are so ever fast and present, She, which means a woman who is not a man, who is alone and fearing for her life, which means that she, the non man, believes that the man, the one banging on the door might do her, the non man, harm, would be completely justified in shooting the man, who is believed to be a violent aggressor, through the door, by which she, the non man, did not increase the danger to her self by opening the door, and then calling the police, who might arrive there some time later."

I hope this alleviates your girlish fear that I advocate shooting anyone who knocks on the door, at great expense in doors as well as court costs.

I might also appreciate a retraction of the statement that, "In New Hampshire she would be completely justified in shooting the man through the door and then calling the police.", ... is, simply, not true!, when it is patently true of a greater part of the United States.

Who is "we" Kemo Sabe?

[MaineShark]

627:4 Physical Force in Defense of a Person. –
    I. A person is justified in using non-deadly force upon another person in order to defend himself or a third person from what he reasonably believes to be the imminent use of unlawful, non-deadly force by such other person, and he may use a degree of such force which he reasonably believes to be necessary for such purpose. However, such force is not justifiable if:
       (a) With a purpose to cause physical harm to another person, he provoked the use of unlawful, non-deadly force by such other person; or
       (b) He was the initial aggressor, unless after such aggression he withdraws from the encounter and effectively communicates to such other person his intent to do so, but the latter notwithstanding continues the use or threat of unlawful, non-deadly force; or
       (c) The force involved was the product of a combat by agreement not authorized by law.
    II. A person is justified in using deadly force upon another person when he reasonably believes that such other person:
       (a) Is about to use unlawful, deadly force against the actor or a third person;
       (b) Is likely to use any unlawful force against a person present while committing or attempting to commit a burglary;
       (c) Is committing or about to commit kidnapping or a forcible sex offense; or
       (d) Is likely to use any unlawful force in the commission of a felony against the actor within such actor's dwelling or its curtilage.

I doubt most juries would accept that banging on a door constitutes "reasonable belief" that the individual is going to break in and attack.

Now, if he in any way tries to open the door, then he would be an attempted burglar, and his aggressive attitude (banging on the door and shouting at her) would probably be reason to believe he would use force on someone he found inside, so deadly force would likely be found lawful.

Joe

[littlehawk]

In 2020 there will be no need for door-knocking census idiots. GPS and an advanced form of Earth Google satelites will be watching it all.

[Ogre]

Repeat after me, "I was in fear for my life."

[MaineShark]

Repeat after me, "I was in fear for my life."

To be lawful, it needs to be a "reasonable belief," not just fear.  Fear, actually, isn't really relevant.

Joe

[Jim Johnson]

627:4 Physical Force in Defense of a Person. –
    I. A person is justified in using non-deadly force upon another person in order to defend himself or a third person from what he reasonably believes to be the imminent use of unlawful, non-deadly force by such other person, and he may use a degree of such force which he reasonably believes to be necessary for such purpose. However, such force is not justifiable if:
       (a) With a purpose to cause physical harm to another person, he provoked the use of unlawful, non-deadly force by such other person; or
       (b) He was the initial aggressor, unless after such aggression he withdraws from the encounter and effectively communicates to such other person his intent to do so, but the latter notwithstanding continues the use or threat of unlawful, non-deadly force; or
       (c) The force involved was the product of a combat by agreement not authorized by law.
    II. A person is justified in using deadly force upon another person when he reasonably believes that such other person:
       (a) Is about to use unlawful, deadly force against the actor or a third person;
       (b) Is likely to use any unlawful force against a person present while committing or attempting to commit a burglary;
       (c) Is committing or about to commit kidnapping or a forcible sex offense; or
       (d) Is likely to use any unlawful force in the commission of a felony against the actor within such actor's dwelling or its curtilage.

Don't believe this RSA applies to women.
It refers to persons but quite distinctly restricts it's self to males.
A "person when he" and "person in order to defend himself" is very clear that the law applies only to male persons.

[MaineShark]

Don't believe this RSA applies to women.
It refers to persons but quite distinctly restricts it's self to males.
A "person when he" and "person in order to defend himself" is very clear that the law applies only to male persons.

Not really...

21:3 Number; Gender. – Words importing the singular number may extend and be applied to several persons or things; words importing the plural number may include the singular; and words importing the masculine gender may extend and be applied to females.

Chapter 21 is useful (21:2 is good for nailing them when they try to re-define words, so remember that one).  Aside from that, since English doesn't have a neutral gender, the masculine gender is used for both the masculine and the neutral, dependent upon context.

Also, if the justifications only applied to males, then females would, by default, be legally-prohibited from defending themselves.

Joe

[Jim Johnson]

,,,the masculine gender may extend and be applied to females.

But that doesn't mean that it does.

[KBCraig]

Good thing Cathleen doesn't have a crossbow.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/06/19/AR2010061901896_pf.html

[Russell Kanning]

maybe you can shoot only after they identify themselves as census workers

[cathleeninnh]

Good thing Cathleen doesn't have a crossbow.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/06/19/AR2010061901896_pf.html

The tone of the article is rather gee whiz. Some people are angry and violent. It doesn't even hint that repeated harassment may have contributed to their anger.

[Lloyd Danforth]

And I thought she posted to disavow any reference to violence on her part.

[CJS]

 

The article states that federal employees are free to ignore no trespassing sings , any one know if this is in true ?

[cathleeninnh]

And I thought she posted to disavow any reference to violence on her part.

I like to keep my options open.