localgirl
New member
Sure! I'll take that bet!
You go ahead and shoot someone dead for stealing your lawn gnome.
If you end up doing jail time, I win.
As to where I'm from, that "ID" in the upper right hand corner of the little box means "Idaho."
"Trespassers will be shot" idiot convicted of murder
- Thread starter nogods
- Start date
Sure! I'll take that bet!
You go ahead and shoot someone dead for stealing your lawn gnome.
If you end up doing jail time, I win.
As to where I'm from, that "ID" in the upper right hand corner of the little box means "Idaho."
BC1
,
The post you're writing about (from localgirl) summarizes Massad Ayoob's advice in his book titled "In The Gravest Extreme." Mas says basically it doesn't matter where your from, if you shoot someone in self defense it will probably ruin your life. You'll be investigated and rarely will the police have the final say, most times the DA will present the case to a grand jury and an indictment may occur only because there were a lot of anti's on the jury. Your guns may be taken away pending the outcome of the investigation leaving you defenseless, depending on the laws in your state you may be sued by the perp or his family and you'll have to live with the religious and moral ramifications of your actions (most normal people have difficulty using deadly force). One must also consider there may be significant legal expenses that could deplete savings for retirement or equity in one's home.
I believe she is merely expressing that it's a tool of last resort. Even in states such as NY, you may use deadly physical force to stop or thwart a burglary or assault. Most states will base your defense of justification on the standard of the reasonable person, which is moving definition based on many circumstances.
SonoraRebel
Picture Rocks, Arizona
Arizona: ARS 13-411. Justification; use of force in crime prevention; applicability
A. A person is justified in threatening or using both physical force and deadly physical force against another if and to the extent the person reasonably believes that physical force or deadly physical force is immediately necessary to prevent the other's commission of arson of an occupied structure under section 13-1704, burglary in the second or first degree under section 13-1507 or 13-1508, kidnapping under section 13-1304, manslaughter under section 13-1103, second or first degree murder under section 13-1104 or 13-1105, sexual conduct with a minor under section 13-1405, sexual assault under section 13-1406, child molestation under section 13-1410, armed robbery under section 13-1904 or aggravated assault under section 13-1204, subsection A, paragraphs 1 and 2.
B. There is no duty to retreat before threatening or using physical force or deadly physical force justified by subsection A of this section.
C. A person is presumed to be acting reasonably for the purposes of this section if the person is acting to prevent the commission of any of the offenses listed in subsection A of this section.
D. This section is not limited to the use or threatened use of physical or deadly physical force in a person's home, residence, place of business, land the person owns or leases, conveyance of any kind, or any other place in this state where a person has a right to be.
A. A person is justified in threatening or using both physical force and deadly physical force against another if and to the extent the person reasonably believes that physical force or deadly physical force is immediately necessary to prevent the other's commission of arson of an occupied structure under section 13-1704, burglary in the second or first degree under section 13-1507 or 13-1508, kidnapping under section 13-1304, manslaughter under section 13-1103, second or first degree murder under section 13-1104 or 13-1105, sexual conduct with a minor under section 13-1405, sexual assault under section 13-1406, child molestation under section 13-1410, armed robbery under section 13-1904 or aggravated assault under section 13-1204, subsection A, paragraphs 1 and 2.
B. There is no duty to retreat before threatening or using physical force or deadly physical force justified by subsection A of this section.
C. A person is presumed to be acting reasonably for the purposes of this section if the person is acting to prevent the commission of any of the offenses listed in subsection A of this section.
D. This section is not limited to the use or threatened use of physical or deadly physical force in a person's home, residence, place of business, land the person owns or leases, conveyance of any kind, or any other place in this state where a person has a right to be.
SonoraRebel
Picture Rocks, Arizona
Sign at my local Veterinarians: 'Unattended children will be neutered and sold as slaves' Sign on my back door: 'Trespassers will be shot. Survivors will be shot again.' I fly one or more of the flags of the Confederacy... or any other damn flag I choose. The illegals know the 'battle flag' means you stand a good chance of gettin' whacked, so they stay away. This is the desert... it's what we do 'n who we are.
HueMan
New member
@localgirl, three times this year already a bg has been shot, killed for trespassing during the commission of a crime and not in the house here in SC. Victim was cleared and resumes everyday life. If there is trespass for the purpose of or during a crime or forcibly enters a home in SC, there is a presumption of fear of imminent danger and lethal force can be used. Upon being cleared of wrong doing on the part of the victim they are immune to criminal AND civil prosecution. Its called the Castle Doctrine. This also applies to being in ones car in public where they have a legal right to be. In SC we don't have to retreat. In fact during hours of darkness anyone trespassing on private property is taking their life in their own hands and the property owner doesn't even have to say stop. It's called PPPA ( Personal Protection Property Act )
Tucker's Mom
New member
Castle Doctrine..
I was once asked this question by a neighbour because of an incident recently concerning a utility marker guy who insists he has the right to enter our properties anywhere he likes. (Our side road is under construction...long story, I wouldn't bother you all with the details.) --"Where does Castle Doctrine really start? Would it be on your property line or inside your house?":wacko:
I was once asked this question by a neighbour because of an incident recently concerning a utility marker guy who insists he has the right to enter our properties anywhere he likes. (Our side road is under construction...long story, I wouldn't bother you all with the details.) --"Where does Castle Doctrine really start? Would it be on your property line or inside your house?":wacko:
J
JSDinTexas
Guest
In Texas the Castle Doctrine defines "habitation" and from the wording does not include the property. With that said, the next defense of property outside the habitation falls under your perceived threat of death or bodily injury and Criminal trespass Sec. 30.05. CRIMINAL TRESPASS.
So you can deal with them in the house as needed, but the rules change out in the yard.
PENAL CODE TITLE 7. OFFENSES AGAINST PROPERTY CHAPTER 30. BURGLARY AND CRIMINAL TRESPASS Sec. 30.01. DEFINITIONS.
In this chapter:
(1) "Habitation" means a structure or vehicle that is adapted for the overnight accommodation of persons, and includes:
(A) each separately secured or occupied portion of the structure or vehicle; and
(B) each structure appurtenant to or connected with the structure or vehicle.
(2) "Building" means any enclosed structure intended for use or occupation as a habitation or for some purpose of trade, manufacture, ornament, or use.
I don't exactly know what you mean by entering anywhere he likes but he does have the right to enter your property in order to mark the utilities anywhere he reasonably thinks they might be and to reasonably access in any reasonable manner he needs to. Note the words reasonable and by that if the side road is blocked then he can enter via the front. He is not trespassing as you gave him the right when you accepted the service from the utility or allowed the utility to be placed on your property.
As for the Castle Doctrine I do not know the details in MO but in SC it does not matter whether you are inside or outside your house. All that is required for it to apply is that you are in a place where you have the right to be. The Castle Doctrine and Stand Your Ground are combined in SC into the Persons and Property Protection Act I think it is called. I know it is the PPPA and covers you anywhere you have the right to be as long as you are not breaking any law and do not start it.
Tucker's Mom
New member
Before we bought this house in the 70's, we had this land surveyed. We know where the utilities are. Suffice to say, the side of our street is being widened. Then there was this guy (he was replaced recently due to many of the neighbours here, including us...) complained about him. He was rude, irreverent and arrogant mainly. In one of his conversations with my husband, he threatened my husband with a gun. This is after saying that he used to be in the army and that he has a gun and he can go anywhere in any properties in our neighbourhood anywhere he like. My husband said, you see that flag over there? pointing to the flag in front of our house "My son is an officer in the US Army. I do not like the way you talked to me and I do not like your attitude. There is nothing in my backyard and if you go inside any fenced properties in this area, you are liable to be shot. And you better clean yourself up. You looked like a bum." This is his only one of his altercation with the young man. Maybe he is telling the truth, but then there is also the possibility that he has been moonlighting after work because one of our neighbours caught him on the side of his house by his telephone box at 8:30pm. Then another neighbour who has two telephone lines, his phone box was forced opened despite that the telephone company had secured it after reporting the incident to them and one of his lines were tampered with. Then one very early Sunday morning, I noticed this guy going to our front neighbour's side of the house, stomping on the plants along the way up. My husband took one look and said that that was the guy he had an altercation with. I called our neighbour but they were in church so I called the next door neighbour to him and he came out and asked the guy what he was doing. The guy swore at him that it is none of his business and he should stick his head inside his own house and leave him alone. My neighbour asked his wife to call the police. Before the police came, this neighbour asked me about our Castle Doctrine. What I do not know if it covers the property line or just inside our house or cars where we are. BTW, I took photos this guy...for reference.
I am sorry for this long post I really did not want to tell you all about this incident as it had seemed petty at first....in short, this guy admitted to the police that he was the one who tampered with our neighbour's phone box. I really just want to know the simple answer to my question not relate to you what really happened.
Ringo
A WATCHMAN
Lets not forget about our SB 1145. It's great to live in a state where we have the right to defend ourselves using deadly force, and the burden of proof is upon the prosecutor, in that the prosecutor must prove beyond any reasonable doubt that the defendant's life was not in danger. The defendant does not have to pay out a fortune to defend himself, nor can the defendant be sued for any reason by the family of the deceased.
What you are describing sounds like someone using his job as a cover for other thinkgs. I would immediately notify the utility company about this and tell what is going on. If he shows up again call the police. He has the right to enter but only on actual business and it sure sounds like what he is doing isn't covered by his work. Unless he is actually marking the lines and appears to be legit I would call the police and let them sort it out. Sounds like you possibly either have a peeping tom or someone making illegal phone calls.
Just a note: At one time I was on the state board for overseeing the utility marking companies so I am familiar with their work and guidelines. This does not fit into what he should be doing.
Rhino
New member
I like the one that says unattended children will be given two espressos and a free puppy.
New Threads
-
Hunter Constantine or Phlster Enigma, for running?
- Started by sigsag1
- Replies: 0
-
-
-
-
Members online
No members online now.