Author Topic: Can't even hunt on your own land any more (Read 1555 times)

lazs2 · « **Reply #30 on:** January 09, 2004, 09:49:02 AM »

sounds like we are talking about two different things. Tresspassing and poaching. If you don't want people to hunt your land then you need to fence it and post signs to that effect. They need to be clearly visible and like every hundred feet on the fence.

poaching means hunting illegaly... without a licence or out of season. If a person wanders onto private unfenced and unposted land and is hunting lawfully...

poachers need to be turned in... they have to have a vehicle nearby and it, along with their firearms will be siezed along with a fine and even jail time.

A poacher who felt threatened and threatened back should be shot before he shoots you... most cases are simply mistakes by lawful hunters and when asked to leave will do so. Allthough.... chasing a lawful hunter who is acting responsibly off your 2000 acre private pres4erve is kinda pissy in my opinion... better to make a new friend.

lazs

Ripsnort · « **Reply #31 on:** January 09, 2004, 09:55:22 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Airhead
We were talking about poaching, Rip, not home invasions. Of course I expect you to twist every scenario presented, and i guess in your mind a poacher hunting illegally on 2,000 acres IS a home invader.

"I guess if I go on trial I'm gonna be sure my lawyer dont pick airhead to be on the jury."-BlkKnt

LOL At least now you're admitting that if you shoot someone who's not a direct threat to you that you might have to stand trial. I'm just confirming that.

"Garner said he told the man to put down his gun, but the man instead raised it to his shoulder to fire. "

[/b]

Rude · « **Reply #32 on:** January 09, 2004, 10:19:20 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Airhead
We were talking about poaching, Rip, not home invasions. Of course I expect you to twist every scenario presented, and i guess in your mind a poacher hunting illegally on 2,000 acres IS a home invader.

"I guess if I go on trial I'm gonna be sure my lawyer dont pick airhead to be on the jury."-BlkKnt

LOL At least now you're admitting that if you shoot someone who's not a direct threat to you that you might have to stand trial. I'm just confirming that.

It's not about home or land...it's about your property rights.

If you are threatened on your own property, be it land or dwelling, you have the right to defend yourself....that right extends to public property as well in most all states.

Do you have a problem with this right of defense?

Airhead · « **Reply #33 on:** January 09, 2004, 10:22:47 AM »

Yes Rip, which would be a threat. However, this is what I was responding to-

"When people come onto our property hunting without permission they do so at the risk of their own life."
-Reschke

"I will hunt the hunters(poachers) for you.
Hunted men before it is the ultimate rush."
-Mr.Black

"It is my understanding that in Oklahoma you may shoot to protect your property. Not first hand info, but I believe what my source told me."
-BlkNit

"Believe it or not Airhead it in some states you can still shoot people for tresspassing."
-Gunslinger

We've gone from bluster (Reschke) to a fantasy (Mr.Black) to misinformation (BlkNit and Gunslinger.)

Reschke- If you shoot a poacher it's manslaughter.

Mr.Black- Your Meds need to be balanced.

BlkNit- Your source is wrong.

Gunslinger- Solely because they're trespassing??? Uh...No. And nowhere in the statutes you used to enforce your point did it say you could.

Rude, don't even play that apples and oranges stuff with me. Trespassing and Threatening are entirely different things. Of COURSE you have the right to use deadly force provided there's a legitimate threat against your life or the lives of your loved ones.

Sheeesh, man. Rip yelling at me and you twisting what I'm saying...and I've got a headache.

Gunslinger · « **Reply #34 on:** January 09, 2004, 10:32:38 AM »

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

If this criteria is met than yes deadly force is authorized. Are you completly ignoring the fact that we were talking about people who are armed. Poachers or not it may hard to tell the difference. In no way should you have to risk your familys life to stop and find out

Quote

criminal mischief during the nighttime

COULD THIS MEAN TRESPASSING??????? I THINK SO!

Creamo · « **Reply #35 on:** January 09, 2004, 10:38:19 AM »

This gets a 4 'The Wobbles' out of 5.

BlckMgk · « **Reply #36 on:** January 09, 2004, 10:46:23 AM »

All I know, if you're going to shoot someone, you're better off killing him, than wounding him. It then becomes your story vs a dead mans and evidence.

Of course there are situations that warrant all different types of actions... just don't be so nit picky... sounds to me they're just foolin around, and I'm sure would use some sense when confronting an invader etc..

midnight Target · « **Reply #37 on:** January 09, 2004, 10:46:53 AM »

Jeez Rip, you are denying the obvious again. Let me spell it out for you in a new BBS one act play... entitled:

From Your Cold Dead Hand

Reschke - When people come onto our property hunting without permission they do so at the risk of their own life.

Airhead - Oh, sheeesh. What are you going to do, shoot them?

Gunslinger - UMM YEA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! ...if he's wearing an orange hunting vest I might ask questions before shooting.

Ripsnort - This might be too hard for an aged, liberal city slicker to understand.

Airhead - You can't do that!

Ripsnort - You can if they are gonna shoot you!

Airhead - That wasn't the point. We were talking about trespassing.

Ripsnort - Not in my world.

Airhead -

Ripsnort -

Airhead · « **Reply #38 on:** January 09, 2004, 10:56:26 AM »

Only 4 Wobbles? Why not 4 1/2, or maybe even five? We have everything- Guns,Marines, bounty hunters, protectors of the Constitution, cluelessness.... We even had a great one-act ply written by MT.

All we need is a bikini pic and this'll be a five, easy.

Rude · « **Reply #39 on:** January 09, 2004, 11:16:11 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Airhead
Yes Rip, which would be a threat. However, this is what I was responding to-

"When people come onto our property hunting without permission they do so at the risk of their own life."
-Reschke

"I will hunt the hunters(poachers) for you.
Hunted men before it is the ultimate rush."
-Mr.Black

"It is my understanding that in Oklahoma you may shoot to protect your property. Not first hand info, but I believe what my source told me."
-BlkNit

"Believe it or not Airhead it in some states you can still shoot people for tresspassing."
-Gunslinger

We've gone from bluster (Reschke) to a fantasy (Mr.Black) to misinformation (BlkNit and Gunslinger.)

Reschke- If you shoot a poacher it's manslaughter.

Mr.Black- Your Meds need to be balanced.

BlkNit- Your source is wrong.

Gunslinger- Solely because they're trespassing??? Uh...No. And nowhere in the statutes you used to enforce your point did it say you could.

Rude, don't even play that apples and oranges stuff with me. Trespassing and Threatening are entirely different things. Of COURSE you have the right to use deadly force provided there's a legitimate threat against your life or the lives of your loved ones.

Sheeesh, man. Rip yelling at me and you twisting what I'm saying...and I've got a headache.

No one here ever stated it was ok to kill someone for merely tresspassing....you sound confused....ya feeling ok?

Airhead · « **Reply #40 on:** January 09, 2004, 11:39:27 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Rude
No one here ever stated it was ok to kill someone for merely tresspassing....you sound confused....ya feeling ok?

Here Rude.

"Believe it or not Airhead it in some states you can still shoot people for tresspassing."
-Gunslinger

You must have missed it.

mrblack · « **Reply #41 on:** January 09, 2004, 12:09:04 PM »

Airhead for one thing Hunting humans Is a kick!.
As an ex Army sniper I have done it.
I do not expect you to understand though.

As far as my statement I will hunt the hunters(poachers) for you.
Hunted men before it is the ultimate rush.
I was kidding ofcourse just blowing smoke trying to be funny.

You really can't take what I say to serious you know LOL.

MJHerman · « **Reply #42 on:** January 09, 2004, 12:24:24 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Gunslinger
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

If this criteria is met than yes deadly force is authorized. Are you completly ignoring the fact that we were talking about people who are armed. Poachers or not it may hard to tell the difference. In no way should you have to risk your familys life to stop and find out

COULD THIS MEAN TRESPASSING??????? I THINK SO!

Trespassing may be "criminal mischief" (I haven't checked the definition), but you are hanging your hat on a provision which doesn't assist the argument that you can shoot a trespasser simply because he is trespassing. The provision allows you to use force if:

Either either of (2)(A) or (B) is satisfied AND either of (3)(A) or (B) is satisfied. The provision is conjunctive. So deadly force authorization only comes from meeting one of the critieria from (2) AND one from (3).

The "shoot first, ask questions later" approach would fail on the basis of not meeting either of (3)(A) or (B). If you ask him to get off your property and he raises his weapon to his shoulder....that's a different story.

Airhead · « **Reply #43 on:** January 09, 2004, 01:20:33 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by mrblack
Airhead for one thing Hunting humans Is a kick!.
As an ex Army sniper I have done it.
I do not expect you to understand though.

As far as my statement I will hunt the hunters(poachers) for you.
Hunted men before it is the ultimate rush.
I was kidding ofcourse just blowing smoke trying to be funny.

You really can't take what I say to serious you know LOL.

LOL "understand?" What, that killing people is a "kick" and a "rush?" You're right- I don't understand. Of course I don't believe you were ever a sniper, either. Sorry, but my BS Meter goes off the chart whenever you post.

Don't let that stop you, though- you seem to have a captive audiance of gon-toting, shoot-em-up-for-looking-at-me-funny Walter Mitty comrades eating up your chit- whatever, I think you're trying to one-up Ripsnort, which reminds me of the old saying- "The first liar doesn't have a chance in this thread."

Gunslinger · « **Reply #44 on:** January 09, 2004, 01:23:48 PM »

The only reason I Bring all of this up is this:

I have a friend who is a repo guy in Dallas/Ftw area. This provision in this law makes it extremly difficult and dangerous to do his job at night time. If he enters somones property without permission he can be shot it has happend to him many of times

MJ I could very well be wrong i'm not a law dog BUT:

I dont beleive 2A is linked with 2B or 3 because of the OR at the end. then it would lead to conditions outlined int 9.41

A

Quote

A person in lawful possession of land or tangible, movable property is justified in using force against another when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to prevent or terminate the other's trespass on the land or unlawful interference with the property.

I still think this is pretty clear though and for the 3rd time AIRHEAD i never said its ok to take shots at people who are clearly hunters