Tall vs. State

Posted by Sheri Harris on Monday, November 2, 2009
IN THE UNITED STATES
CIVIL MATTER

SYNOPSIS

Millie Vain and Jeremy Tall were accosted by a man who beat and robbed both Ms. Vain and Mr. Tall one evening as they were walking home. The couple who were severly attacked managed to phone police for help. They were taken to a nearby hospital suffering from bruises,torso and broken rib injuries over the face and body. A short time later the assailant who fit the description of a man who robbed the couple was admitted to the hospital with chest and groin pain. The assailant identified as Mr. Nez told the attendant on duty he was having a heart attack and felt pain while out for a jog. While searching Mr. Nez items belonging to Ms. Vain and Mr. Tall were found. An illegal taser was found on Mr. Tall while he was being treated. The officer asked Mr. Tall why he carried such a weapon around. Mr. Tall informed him that he did not have a gun permit and needed something to protect he and his wife if they were ever attacked. The officer promptly summoned Mr. Tall for illegal posession of a weapon.  Mr. Tall then filed complaint against the officer and the complaint was sent to Pieces.

ARGUMENT

Aggravated battery and assault with a concealed weapon and the justification for self defense. The assailant Mr. Nez is a man of large build  at six feet seven and three hundred and fifty pounds. He used blunt bodily force on the two victims without using a weapon. During the attack Mr. Tall managed to strike Mr. Nez in the chest and groin with his taser causing Mr. Nez to flee.

The right to self defense expanded-
Mr. Tall used non-deadly force to protect that of himself and his wife.  Mr. Nez is a career criminal and guilty of felony crime.

Mr. Nez was the aggressor and intended to bring physical contact thus it was his own actions that caused harm to himself while he beat Ms. Vain and Mr. Tall to the ground.

With human rights superior to property rights, what was Mr. Tall trying to protect? 

QUESTION

Was it illegal of Mr. Tall to use a weapon to defend himself since Mr. Nez did not use a weapon to attack the couple?

Tall vs. State will resume...



null

Tall vs. State

Posted by Sheri Harris on Monday, November 2, 2009
IN THE UNITED STATES
CIVIL MATTER

SYNOPSIS

Millie Vain and Jeremy Tall were accosted by a man who beat and robbed both Ms. Vain and Mr. Tall one evening as they were walking home. The couple who were severly attacked managed to phone police for help. They were taken to a nearby hospital suffering from bruises,torso and broken rib injuries over the face and body. A short time later the assailant who fit the description of a man who robbed the couple was admitted to the hospital with chest and groin pain. The assailant identified as Mr. Nez told the attendant on duty he was having a heart attack and felt pain while out for a jog. While searching Mr. Nez items belonging to Ms. Vain and Mr. Tall were found. An illegal taser was found on Mr. Tall while he was being treated. The officer asked Mr. Tall why he carried such a weapon around. Mr. Tall informed him that he did not have a gun permit and needed something to protect he and his wife if they were ever attacked. The officer promptly summoned Mr. Tall for illegal posession of a weapon.  Mr. Tall then filed complaint against the officer and the complaint was sent to Pieces.

ARGUMENT

Aggravated battery and assault with a concealed weapon and the justification for self defense. The assailant Mr. Nez is a man of large build  at six feet seven and three hundred and fifty pounds. He used blunt bodily force on the two victims without using a weapon. During the attack Mr. Tall managed to strike Mr. Nez in the chest and groin with his taser causing Mr. Nez to flee.

The right to self defense expanded-
Mr. Tall used non-deadly force to protect that of himself and his wife.  Mr. Nez is a career criminal and guilty of felony crime.

Mr. Nez was the aggressor and intended to bring physical contact thus it was his own actions that caused harm to himself while he beat Ms. Vain and Mr. Tall to the ground.

With human rights superior to property rights, what was Mr. Tall trying to protect? 

QUESTION

Was it illegal of Mr. Tall to use a weapon to defend himself since Mr. Nez did not use a weapon to attack the couple?

Tall vs. State will resume...



null

Tall vs. State

Posted by Sheri Harris on Monday, November 2, 2009
IN THE UNITED STATES
CIVIL MATTER

SYNOPSIS

Millie Vain and Jeremy Tall were accosted by a man who beat and robbed both Ms. Vain and Mr. Tall one evening as they were walking home. The couple who were severly attacked managed to phone police for help. They were taken to a nearby hospital suffering from bruises,torso and broken rib injuries over the face and body. A short time later the assailant who fit the description of a man who robbed the couple was admitted to the hospital with chest and groin pain. The assailant identified as Mr. Nez told the attendant on duty he was having a heart attack and felt pain while out for a jog. While searching Mr. Nez items belonging to Ms. Vain and Mr. Tall were found. An illegal taser was found on Mr. Tall while he was being treated. The officer asked Mr. Tall why he carried such a weapon around. Mr. Tall informed him that he did not have a gun permit and needed something to protect he and his wife if they were ever attacked. The officer promptly summoned Mr. Tall for illegal posession of a weapon.  Mr. Tall then filed complaint against the officer and the complaint was sent to Pieces.

ARGUMENT

Aggravated battery and assault with a concealed weapon and the justification for self defense. The assailant Mr. Nez is a man of large build  at six feet seven and three hundred and fifty pounds. He used blunt bodily force on the two victims without using a weapon. During the attack Mr. Tall managed to strike Mr. Nez in the chest and groin with his taser causing Mr. Nez to flee.

The right to self defense expanded-
Mr. Tall used non-deadly force to protect that of himself and his wife.  Mr. Nez is a career criminal and guilty of felony crime.

Mr. Nez was the aggressor and intended to bring physical contact thus it was his own actions that caused harm to himself while he beat Ms. Vain and Mr. Tall to the ground.

With human rights superior to property rights, what was Mr. Tall trying to protect? 

QUESTION

Was it illegal of Mr. Tall to use a weapon to defend himself since Mr. Nez did not use a weapon to attack the couple?

Tall vs. State will resume...



null

Tall vs. State

Posted by Sheri Harris on Monday, November 2, 2009
IN THE UNITED STATES
CIVIL MATTER

SYNOPSIS

Millie Vain and Jeremy Tall were accosted by a man who beat and robbed both Ms. Vain and Mr. Tall one evening as they were walking home. The couple who were severly attacked managed to phone police for help. They were taken to a nearby hospital suffering from bruises,torso and broken rib injuries over the face and body. A short time later the assailant who fit the description of a man who robbed the couple was admitted to the hospital with chest and groin pain. The assailant identified as Mr. Nez told the attendant on duty he was having a heart attack and felt pain while out for a jog. While searching Mr. Nez items belonging to Ms. Vain and Mr. Tall were found. An illegal taser was found on Mr. Tall while he was being treated. The officer asked Mr. Tall why he carried such a weapon around. Mr. Tall informed him that he did not have a gun permit and needed something to protect he and his wife if they were ever attacked. The officer promptly summoned Mr. Tall for illegal posession of a weapon.  Mr. Tall then filed complaint against the officer and the complaint was sent to Pieces.

ARGUMENT

Aggravated battery and assault with a concealed weapon and the justification for self defense. The assailant Mr. Nez is a man of large build  at six feet seven and three hundred and fifty pounds. He used blunt bodily force on the two victims without using a weapon. During the attack Mr. Tall managed to strike Mr. Nez in the chest and groin with his taser causing Mr. Nez to flee.

The right to self defense expanded-
Mr. Tall used non-deadly force to protect that of himself and his wife.  Mr. Nez is a career criminal and guilty of felony crime.

Mr. Nez was the aggressor and intended to bring physical contact thus it was his own actions that caused harm to himself while he beat Ms. Vain and Mr. Tall to the ground.

With human rights superior to property rights, what was Mr. Tall trying to protect? 

QUESTION

Was it illegal of Mr. Tall to use a weapon to defend himself since Mr. Nez did not use a weapon to attack the couple?

Tall vs. State will resume...



null