Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/5/84; site SCIRTP.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!cmcl2!seismo!harvard!talcott!panda!genrad!decvax!mcnc!rti-sel!SCIRTP!todd
From: todd@SCIRTP.UUCP (Todd Jones)
Newsgroups: net.politics
Subject: Re: Handgun control--one more time.
Message-ID: <266@SCIRTP.UUCP>
Date: Thu, 1-Aug-85 13:09:27 EDT
Article-I.D.: SCIRTP.266
Posted: Thu Aug  1 13:09:27 1985
Date-Received: Sun, 4-Aug-85 04:44:20 EDT
References: <3207@decwrl.UUCP> <239@SCIRTP.UUCP> <2945@topaz.ARPA>
Organization: SCI Systems, Research Triangle Park, NC
Lines: 23

> >Unfortunately, another crime would have occurred, the shooting of the
> >alleged rapist. Depending on the locale, the charge could range from 
> >manslaughter to murder.
> >...
> >Jim Ingram	
> 
> You don"t seem to understand due process yourself.  
> None of these considerations apply in the case of a victim defending herself
> *during the progress of the assault*, now do they?  There is a considerable
> difference between self-defense and vigilantism, and your labelling
> of one as the other is an ingenuous distortion.
> 
> --JoSH

Josh-

For the sake of brievity, Mr. Ingram didn't include the whole
posting he responded to. The original posting advocated third
party vigilanteism as acceptable in the case of rape. I know
Mr. Ingram well enough to believe he would advocate in favor of
a woman's right to defend herself against rape using handguns.

-todd jones