Anyone else ran across a nut job lately?

[mikec]

Absolutely. I didn't say the guy chasing him down wasn't excessive. If he wouldn't have broke the law in the first place none of this would have happened.

On the riding through the yard, that wasn't posted as no trespassing, what law was broken? And who appointed the nut the keeper of the yard? And where was it said it was a nice yard? It wasn't. The whole damned thing is dead.

And to coin this jackass almost running me over with a car as merely excessive is kind of moronic. It wasn't his yard, I wasn't hurting anything, and he completely flipped out. Not excusable.

[SMKR]

Can you get us pics of the area Mike?

[SS Junk]

[Forever_frost]

On the riding through the yard, that wasn't posted as no trespassing, what law was broken? And who appointed the nut the keeper of the yard? And where was it said it was a nice yard? It wasn't. The whole damned thing is dead.

And to coin this jackass almost running me over with a car as merely excessive is kind of moronic. It wasn't his yard, I wasn't hurting anything, and he completely flipped out. Not excusable.

Posted or not, it was trespassing. If you hadn't ridden your bike through someone's yard then this whole thing would have been avoided. And quite possibly, the home owner appointed the nut to watch it for him. Or do you not keep an eye on your neighbor's home when they're not home?

[347Mike]

You should've shot him when he tried running you over. I mean you would have shot an ankle biter dog that tried attacking you, I would think actually being threatened by a car would be more dangerous.

That is however, unless everyone on here who talks about shooting people for stupid shit is just completely speaking out of their ass.... Which I am sure they are...

[Steve]

Or do you not keep an eye on your neighbor's home when they're not home?

Oh boy... lol

[Osiris]

Sec. 9.42. DEADLY FORCE TO PROTECT PROPERTY. A person is justified in using deadly force against another to protect land or tangible, movable property:

(1) if he would be justified in using force against the other under Section 9.41; and

(2) when and to the degree he reasonably believes the deadly force is immediately necessary:

(A) to prevent the other's imminent commission of arson, burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, theft during the nighttime, or criminal mischief during the nighttime; or

(B) to prevent the other who is fleeing immediately after committing burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, or theft during the nighttime from escaping with the property; and

(3) he reasonably believes that:

(A) the land or property cannot be protected or recovered by any other means; or

(B) the use of force other than deadly force to protect or recover the land or property would expose the actor or another to a substantial risk of death or serious bodily injury.


I'm going to go with 3 a and 3 b.

Hey, you might want to re-read this. You HAVE to have BOTH, 2(A) or (B) and 3 (A) or (B)

Killing a man for riding his dirtbike in mid day at 4 mph will get you life.

[bcoop]

Hey, you might want to re-read this. You HAVE to have BOTH, 2(A) or (B) and 3 (A) or (B)

Killing a man for riding his dirtbike in mid day at 4 mph will get you life.

Get out of here with that legal mumbo jumbo. He has a bullet still lodged in his head! He's a property owner! He can do as he pleases!

[ceyko]

I'm not reading all 3 pages of this shit. It's best not to knowingly enter someone's property w/o being invited or otherwise asking.

If you do, dont' be surprised. Right or wrong, people may get upset over it.

[347Mike]

I'm not reading all 3 pages of this shit. It's best not to knowingly enter someone's property w/o being invited or otherwise asking.

If you do, dont' be surprised. Right or wrong, people may get upset over it.

The guy rode a bike along side his property line, probably never even looked at the house and was off in 20 seconds.

[Forever_frost]

As I said before, we don't know both sides of the story, now do we?

[Forever_frost]

Hey, you might want to re-read this. You HAVE to have BOTH, 2(A) or (B) and 3 (A) or (B)

Killing a man for riding his dirtbike in mid day at 4 mph will get you life.

Perhaps, but it will get him death.

[347Mike]

As I said before, we don't know both sides of the story, now do we?

Not sure if serious side: Now you just sound like the cops that post here... lol

Serious side: I think riding along the yard line, on it, or beside it explains the story enough. He was riding along the yard line, not digging through his trash or peaking in his windows.

You yourself said in the reply posted by Hobie that you examine each situation. Surely you can understand the difference between riding along his yard line and an actual threat. Atleast I hope so.

[CJ-95GT]

I'm not reading all 3 pages of this shit. It's best not to knowingly enter someone's property w/o being invited or otherwise asking.

If you do, dont' be surprised. Right or wrong, people may get upset over it.

Agreed, but the guy was excessive and could have hurt himself over a little tresspassing. Hell, the neighborhood kids always walk between houses in my hood.

Fwiw, I wish someone would tresspass on my next door neighbors yard and take a shit in it while there at it. Even it I liked my neighbor I wouldn't go crazy on the perp.

[Forever_frost]

Not sure if serious side: Now you just sound like the cops that post here... lol

Serious side: I think riding along the yard line, on it, or beside it explains the story enough. He was riding along the yard line, not digging through his trash or peaking in his windows.

You yourself said in the reply posted by Hobie that you examine each situation. Surely you can understand the difference between riding along his yard line and an actual threat. Atleast I hope so.

That was the point. I found it fitting.

And of course I see the difference. Thing is, he trespassed. Simple, he admitted to it. What he's pissed about is because he was chased down for doing that trespassing.