Anyone else ran across a nut job lately?

[stevo]

More like, learn the law before claiming you have the right to shoot someone on your property, otherwise you'll be in pound you in the ass prison for the rest of your life.

Don't be where you are not supposed to be.


Stevo

[racrguy]

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.

1 is going to bite you in the ass, and even using 3 a and b is on shaky ground at best. See you in prison, broham.

[Forever_frost]

Oh good fucking god.

It's called baiting and sarcasm. Do I really have to say "I don't really believe you hate me or other disabled individuals of varying degrees and disability?"

[Ratt]

I may go to jail, but then there'd be a trial and I'm willing to roll the dice. You ignore the signs, you pay the price

So basically you're saying you'll just shoot someone on your property because you can? Stop being such a curmudgeon.

[Silverback]

I may go to jail, but then there'd be a trial and I'm willing to roll the dice. You ignore the signs, you pay the price

you forget that you have to justify your actions in a case like this, not the other way around.

You kill someone, and you have to prove you were in danger. I promise in this situation, assuming mike didn't steal anything or try to kill anyone , if you shot him, or even discharged your firearm at him (assault with a deadly weapon). You'd find yourself in jail. Probably a mental hospital as you've claimed your are mentally handicap, so that's probably even worse than a jail.

[Forever_frost]

I don't hate you, or the mentally disabled. What I dislike is the fact that you know you don't think straight, yet you think the way you do things is right, when clearly they're wrong.

And no, I do not agree with you that your reading is correct.

You didn't get both sides of the story before you jumped on the "Come on my property and I'll blow you away for no other reason" line of thinking. And it's wrong.

Forever_frost. You are wrong.

But it begs the question, how do you know you're more qualified than I am when it comes to firearms? You clearly show a lack of proper thinking when it comes to their use. IMO, that makes me far more qualified than you.

I didn't say I'm more qualified on firearms. I said Dynamite. Do try to read. Yes, I think the way I do is right, as do you. You don't want to deal with rounds directed at you? Do not enter my private property without permission or business here. Gate says it, each of the barbed wire fences say it, the front of the house says it.

And you didn't get both sides of the story either did you? Or did you go talk to the individual mentioned?

[slow99]

Do you hate the mentally disabled or just me?

Oh good fucking god.

[347Mike]

Jesus fucking Christ.. Some of you people are mind blowing.. None of you would do jack shit.. Some of you really do live in a fantasy world.

Omfg! Someone rode within a foot of my yard!!! I better not confront them rationally I should blow them to smithereens!! They violated my rights and it's my right to protect my property! Who knows what that mans intentions were!!

None of you would do a god damn thing.. Some of you people need to visit something called reality.. Warren Buffett couldn't fund the amount of ammo needed to shoot every person who uninvited stepped on my yard..

Christ.....

[Forever_frost]

oh and i agree that mike was wrong for riding thru anyone's property on a motorcycle.

But shooting someone for doing so is a bit overboard, and mentally handicap or not, i'm sure you'd still go to jail for doing so.

cutting through a yard or property does not prove any criminal intent or property theft, if you shoot him, make sure you put a lawn gnome in his arms or something, so when the cops show up you can say he took it from you.

I may go to jail, but then there'd be a trial and I'm willing to roll the dice. You ignore the signs, you pay the price

[Silverback]

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.

how so, there was no risk of death or bodily injury (B), and if he was doing nothing more than riding a dirt bike on your land, how can you justify (A)?

[racrguy]

Or it could have been his house and he was visiting someone else. As our resident police tend to say, we don't have the whole story, now do we?

Why do I own a firearm? Because I have a constitutional right to do so. Who are you to take my right from me? I carry daily and haven't shot anyone in 7 years. I can assure you, this second grader is FAR more qualified with a stick of dynamite than you are.

You even admit that my reading is correct. You would be quite justified in shooting me were I doing that. And we have his account, not the other individuals. I see a lot of personal attack at me for my state of mind yet nothing saying my interpretation is wrong. Tell me, what do you have against me? Do you hate the mentally disabled or just me?

I don't hate you, or the mentally disabled. What I dislike is the fact that you know you don't think straight, yet you think the way you do things is right, when clearly they're wrong.

And no, I do not agree with you that your reading is correct.

You didn't get both sides of the story before you jumped on the "Come on my property and I'll blow you away for no other reason" line of thinking. And it's wrong.

Forever_frost. You are wrong.

But it begs the question, how do you know you're more qualified than I am when it comes to firearms? You clearly show a lack of proper thinking when it comes to their use. IMO, that makes me far more qualified than you.

[Forever_frost]

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.

[Silverback]

oh and i agree that mike was wrong for riding thru anyone's property on a motorcycle.

But shooting someone for doing so is a bit overboard, and mentally handicap or not, i'm sure you'd still go to jail for doing so.

cutting through a yard or property does not prove any criminal intent or property theft, if you shoot him, make sure you put a lawn gnome in his arms or something, so when the cops show up you can say he took it from you.

[Broncojohnny]

Don't ride where you are not supposed to ride.............................................. .................................................. ....................... problem solved.

Stevo

More like, learn the law before claiming you have the right to shoot someone on your property, otherwise you'll be in pound you in the ass prison for the rest of your life.

[Ratt]

Damn, I started all kinds of shit in here. I get the whole don't trespass thing, and I'd be upset about someone riding a dirtbike through my yard at any speed. Given the fact that all the trigger-happys in here are overlooking the fact that the guy chasing him wasn't ven the property owner, I'll choose to ignore it as well and say that firing on someone in full dirt-bike gear who probably meant no harm WILL put you in jail. He was on the edge of the yard, just trying to get back to the street to get out of there. If you saw him a second time, or third time, then I could see where you might have REASONABLE cause to think he was casing your place, but even then, I'd have a hard time shooting someone who probably posed no threat in the first place.