Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: gofaster on January 08, 2004, 02:40:41 PM
-
... without some poacher coming along and threatening your caretaker.
Foxworthy Offers Reward for Information
By The Associated Press
COLUMBUS, Ga. - Jeff Foxworthy has offered a $2,000 reward for information leading to the conviction of a person who trespassed on his rural west-central Georgia property and pointed a gun at his caretaker.
The comedian, who says poaching has been a problem on his 2,000-acre property in Harris County near the Alabama state line, was hunting one day during the holidays when he saw someone carrying a gun.
"Jeff Foxworthy was hunting and witnessed the poacher on the property," state Wildlife Resources Division officer Randy Hackley told the Columbus Ledger-Enquirer. "He was hiding in a ditch in some bushes."
Foxworthy's property caretaker, Glenn Garner, told state wildlife investigators he confronted the intruder on Dec. 28.
Garner said he told the man to put down his gun, but the man instead raised it to his shoulder to fire. That's when Garner said he fired a shot at the man and then ran behind his vehicle for cover.
When he looked back, the man was pointing his gun at him again. Garner said he stayed behind the vehicle until it was safe to leave.
Wildlife officers are investigating.
The 45-year-old Foxworthy, best-known for his "You might be a redneck if..." jokes, starred in the NBC sitcom "The Jeff Foxworthy Show" from 1995-97.
I have relatives that own a lot of rural property in the Florida panhandle area, and they say not only do they have a problem with poachers, but also with people harvesting illegal drug crops. And, one time my uncle said the state government contacted him about an illegal dumpsite he had going. He told them he didn't have a dump site, of any kind. That's when he found out somebody had been dumping old tires on his land. The government had found it while doing drug overflights.
When you're dealing with big acreage, its tough to protect your property line.
-
you might not be a redneck if you own 2000 acres.
-
When people come onto our property hunting without permission they do so at the risk of their own life. My parents and grandparents made it well known that if you wanted to hunt the land you asked first. If not then it was at your own risk to be there.
-
Originally posted by Reschke
When people come onto our property hunting without permission they do so at the risk of their own life. My parents and grandparents made it well known that if you wanted to hunt the land you asked first. If not then it was at your own risk to be there.
Oh, sheeesh. What are you going to do, shoot them? :rolleyes:
-
I will hunt the hunters(poachers) for you.
Hunted men before it is the ultimate rush.
LOL.
Ahh bringin back memories of central Ameerika.
-
Originally posted by mrblack
I will hunt the hunters(poachers) for you.
Hunted men before it is the ultimate rush.
LOL.
Ahh bringin back memories of central Ameerika.
Are you Predator? :eek:
-
Originally posted by Airhead
Oh, sheeesh. What are you going to do, shoot them? :rolleyes:
UMM YEA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
if somone comes on my property armed that is a direct threat to me and my family....even if he was just hunting.
now comon sense does come to play here...if he's wearing an orange hunting vest I might ask questions befor shooting.
Believe it or not Airhead it in some states you can still shoot people for tresspassing
-
Originally posted by Gunslinger
UMM YEA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
if somone comes on my property armed that is a direct threat to me and my family....even if he was just hunting.
now comon sense does come to play here...if he's wearing an orange hunting vest I might ask questions befor shooting.
Believe it or not Airhead it in some states you can still shoot people for tresspassing
This might be too hard for an aged, liberal city slicker to understand. ;)
-
Originally posted by Ripsnort
This might be too hard for an aged, liberal city slicker to understand. ;)
probably. Calling 911 and being put on hold isnt gonna save you if your home is about to be invaded.
-
My grandparents have a piece of property and have nice big tall trees, well, people have chopped down some of these trees :-(..
I can't wait for my grandad to find my dads .22...
-
Originally posted by Gunslinger
Believe it or not Airhead it in some states you can still shoot people for tresspassing
LMAO No you can't. There's not one State in the Nation that will allow you to shoot a trespasser unless he's a direct threat to your life and/or property. Even if you're acquitted for murder or manslaughter you'll take a royal screwing in civil court. If you shoot a trespasser for the simple fact he's trespassing then I suggest you bury him and bury him DEEP. The criminal justice system will fry your arse, bud.
"This might be too hard for an aged, liberal city slicker to understand."- Ripsnort
I got news for ya Rip- it's called "real world." And the REAL world is different than this CYBER world, in that we don't shoot our neighbors twenty minutes after the power goes out, kill trespassers, become Karate experts, war heroes, porn stars or Super Dads, in the REAL world we all have real jobs and don't have time to do the mental mastrubation of imagining yourself offing Central American drug runners and boning down Sports Illustrated swimsuit models. It's only here some of us become Walter Mitty. In the "real" world you don't shoot trespassers. You call the Sheriff.
-
In no state in the Union can you use deadly force to protect property. You can threaten it, but you can't use it.
-
SUBCHAPTER B. JUSTIFICATION GENERALLY
§ 9.21. Public Duty
(a) Except as qualified by Subsections (b) and (c), conduct is justified if the actor reasonably believes the conduct is required or authorized by law, by the judgment or order of a competent court or other governmental tribunal, or in the execution of legal process.
(b) The other sections of this chapter control when force is used against a person to protect persons (Subchapter C), to protect property (Subchapter D), for law enforcement (Subchapter E), or by virtue of a special relationship (Subchapter F).
(c) The use of deadly force is not justified under this section unless the actor reasonably believes the deadly force is specifically required by statute or unless it occurs in the lawful conduct of war. If deadly force is so justified, there is no duty to retreat before using it.
HERE"S WERE IT GETS REALLY GOOD:
9.41. Protection of One's Own Property
(a) 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.
(b) A person unlawfully dispossessed of land or tangible, movable property by another is justified in using force against the other when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to reenter the land or recover the property if the actor uses the force immediately or in fresh pursuit after the dispossession and:
(1) the actor reasonably believes the other had no claim of right when he dispossessed the actor; or
(2) the other accomplished the dispossession by using force, threat, or fraud against the actor.
Acts 1973, 63rd Leg., p. 883, ch. 399, § 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1974. Amended by Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 900, § 1.01, eff. Sept. 1, 1994.
§ 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
http://www.capitol.state.tx.us/cgi-bin/cqcgi?CQ_SESSION_KEY=WODPIKZDWIIQ&CQ_QUERY_HANDLE=136357&CQ_CUR_DOCUMENT=2&CQ_TLO_DOC_TEXT=YES (http://www.capitol.state.tx.us/cgi-bin/cqcgi?CQ_SESSION_KEY=WODPIKZDWIIQ&CQ_QUERY_HANDLE=136357&CQ_CUR_DOCUMENT=2&CQ_TLO_DOC_TEXT=YES)
-
Guy up the road from me has 100 acres. He caught someone hunting his land, and he asked them to leave and not come back. Next time he caught them and confronted them, he was about to tell them the same thing when they started to raise a gun. He practically blew there leg off. Hehe. Bet that feller respects the rights of private property from now on.
Oh, no charges were filed.
-
Originally posted by Lizard3
Guy up the road from me has 100 acres. He caught someone hunting his land, and he asked them to leave and not come back. Next time he caught them and confronted them, he was about to tell them the same thing when they started to raise a gun. He practically blew there leg off. Hehe. Bet that feller respects the rights of private property from now on.
Oh, no charges were filed.
Alright, he fired in self defense. What's your point?
-
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 ;)
That being said, people do occasionally get lost, cross a line they were unaware of. Climbing over a fence or walking past a no trespassing sign would be good signs that you are going the wrong way. There was a time that if it weren't posted it was ok to hunt, but now the laws say different, so you dont really even have to post your property. Of course, it would be pretty bad manners to hunt someones land without permission.
-
I was out hunting on the last day of the season when I ran into a group of 3 guys hunting on our 180 acres of private land. Turned out they had just crossed the line and didnt realize it, just as BlkKnit said. No confrontation happened, but the guys didnt like it when I asked them to leave.
-
Geezus Airhead, if somebody comes on your land armed, locked, loaded, you're supposed to let them have the first shot?
-
There's not one State in the Nation that will allow you to shoot a trespasser unless he's a direct threat to your life and/or property
What do you think trespassing is......I do believe I also said that common sense does come into play here as well
-
Well, I probably shouldn't be suprised that's the law in Texas. Then I will amend my previous statement to most states and not in Arizona.
-
Most of the poachers I have delt with on my property were no problem. I locate their vehicle (it's usually parked very close...poachers are lazy), block it in so they can't leave, call 911 and have them send the Game Warden.
-
Originally posted by Gunslinger
What do you think trespassing is......I do believe I also said that common sense does come into play here as well
Trespassing isn't "risk of life or property." Common sense tells me, if I'm on your jury and you're on trial for manslaughter because you offed some dude who was hunting on your property, that you are guilty of manslaughter and need to go to prison.
Hey look, I don't want to interfere with your mental mastrubation circlejerk with Ripsnort and Mr. Black about how you guys will gun down all trespassers, but in all candor you are all full of... feces.
"Geezus Airhead, if somebody comes on your land armed, locked, loaded, you're supposed to let them have the first shot?" -Funkypants
Well, yeaa, Funky- in true Alexander Hamilton fashion I will stand tall, present a broad sillouette and allow my adversary to have the first shot. Of course nowadays we have 30 round magazines instead of flintlocks so I may duck for cover after the seventh or eighth shot is fired. :rolleyes:
You guys need to get a grip. You can't shoot people simply because they wander onto your land, even if they're holding a rifle or shotgun. You must demonstrate they are a threat to you, and posession of a firearm BY A HUNTER ain't enough.
-
now comon sense does come to play here...if he's wearing an orange hunting vest I might ask questions befor shooting.
Who said this....oh yea that was me. I never said shooting hunters on the spot was OK i said in some states YES u can shoot people to protect your property. U said i was not in the "real world" well you are wrong, in the real world this does happen.
Why u would just let an intruder take a shot at you is beyond me I guess your just speaking metaphorically.
AGAIN FOR THE LAST TIME......Comon sense should prevail here. If they dont look like a threat use caution....if they get out of a van w/ AKs and ski masks and there's no movie cameras around start shooting. And dont give me any crap about people not having comon sense if they lack it they shouldnt have a fire arm (just my opinion of course)
OH AND LASTLY
I only mentally masterbate with britney spears she just doesnt know it yet
-
In AZ you have to be in grave danger before you can shoot someone for being in your house. You can't shoot them if they're fleeing. You can't shoot to mame, has to be with the intent to kill.
There are a few circumstances where you can "shoot first, ask later" such as catching someone in the act of arson or rape.
On the bright side, we have reciprocity with TX. ;)
When I was taking the CCW class the instructor was telling us about one state where if a person is attacking you with a knife, the blade has to be penetrating your skin before you can justify shooting them. I think it was NC, but I'm not positive.
-
I guess if I go on trial I'm gonna be sure my lawyer dont pick airhead to be on the jury. :p
-
Originally posted by Airhead
Oh, sheeesh. What are you going to do, shoot them? :rolleyes:
Dam right I would!
-
Originally posted by Airhead
Well, yeaa, Funky- in true Alexander Hamilton fashion I will stand tall, present a broad sillouette and allow my adversary to have the first shot.
I would emulate Hickory Jackson if I were you.
Jackson followed the same dueling strategy as Hamilton but Jackson was able to return fire at his adversary and ultimately prevailed.
Hamilton died in pain the day after having been shot in the abdomen by Burr.
-
Originally posted by Airhead
.
Hey look, I don't want to interfere with your mental mastrubation circlejerk with Ripsnort and Mr. Black about how you guys will gun down all trespassers, but in all candor you are all full of... feces.
Sounds like you're the one regressing back to the Airhead of old and mentally masturbating a point which had already been clear at the beginning of the thread in the original story:
Foxworthy's property caretaker, Glenn Garner, told state wildlife investigators he confronted the intruder on Dec. 28.
Garner said he told the man to put down his gun, but the man instead raised it to his shoulder to fire.
What part of this did you misunderstand, City slicker?
-
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. :rolleyes:
"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. ;)
-
This in today's paper. Robert Hoaglin is an old accuaintance of mine, James Munjar is my cousin.
Covelo man, intruder in shootout
Mendocino deputies say one of two assailants from RP; pot may be reason for clash
January 9, 2004
By MARY CALLAHAN
THE PRESS DEMOCRAT
A Covelo man exchanged gunfire Thursday morning with two masked intruders in his home, hitting one of his assailants but suffering multiple wounds.
Mendocino County authorities said Robert Hoaglin already was armed when he confronted the men at about 8 a.m. after they entered his home on Hulls Valley Road in an isolated area about eight miles north of Covelo.
One of the intruders, James Munjar, 50, of Rohnert Park, was armed, Mendocino County Sheriff's Capt. Kevin Broin said.
It was unclear whether the second suspect, a 37-year-old transient identified as Richard David Campbell, had a weapon, Broin said.
Hoaglin and Munjar exchanged fire and both sustained multiple injuries. They were hospitalized at undisclosed locations Thursday night -- Munjar, under guard, Broin said.
He said one round hit Hoaglin in the mouth, while others hit his torso.
Details of Munjar's wounds weren't immediately available.
Broin said their locations were being withheld in the event others linked to the incident might represent a threat to one or both men.
"We're worried about the safety of everyone involved with this thing," he said.
Broin said marijuana was found in the home and detectives believe the drug is at the root of the crime -- perhaps a partnership gone bad or some kind of botched theft.
"We're not really sure if they were known to each other at this point or not, but I think the foundation for this whole problem revolves around marijuana production and sales and that type of thing," Broin said.
Broin said it appeared that Hoaglin may have been awakened by the men who came into his home.
A woman and a child were home as well, but neither was injured, Broin said.
The suspects, both wearing ski masks, fled during the gunfight, with Munjar, seriously injured, at the wheel, he said.
Someone from the house called authorities and provided a vehicle description, which was used to track the pair down about two hours later on Mina Road, near the Trinity County line.
A sheriff's sergeant and deputy stopped the vehicle and arrested the two men without incident.
Broin said it was unclear if Munjar would have survived had he not been caught and received medical care.
Campbell was booked into the county jail, while Munjar was taken by ambulance to a hospital, Broin said.
Neither his condition nor Hoaglin's was available Thursday night.
-
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
-
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. :rolleyes:
"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]
:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:
-
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. :rolleyes:
"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?
-
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.
-
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
criminal mischief during the nighttime
COULD THIS MEAN TRESPASSING??????? I THINK SO!
-
This gets a 4 'The Wobbles' out of 5.
-
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..
-
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 -
-
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.
-
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?
-
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. :rolleyes:
-
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.
-
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.
-
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."
:D
-
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
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
-
This is like teaching my sister's retarded twins, Roscoe and Oscar, how to play Monopoly. If Roscoe isn't eating the deeds then Oscar is stuffing the little green houses up his nose.
You're right, you ain't no lawdog.
-
Originally posted by Gunslinger
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
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
I re-read the provision and reproduced the whole thing below...more out of curiousity (I am a law dog, but not a criminal lawyer) than out of trying to argue any particular side. In any event, here's the relevant provisions:
"9.41. Protection of One's Own Property
(a) 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.
(b) A person unlawfully dispossessed of land or tangible, movable property by another is justified in using force against the other when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to reenter the land or recover the property if the actor uses the force immediately or in fresh pursuit after the dispossession and:
(1) the actor reasonably believes the other had no claim of right when he dispossessed the actor; or
(2) the other accomplished the dispossession by using force, threat, or fraud against the actor.
Acts 1973, 63rd Leg., p. 883, ch. 399, § 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1974. Amended by Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 900, § 1.01, eff. Sept. 1, 1994.
§ 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"
OK. So 9.41(a) and (b) give the right to use force, but notice that its says "force" and not "deadly force". So you can't shoot someone and then plead that 9.41 let you do it.
9.42 authorizes "deadly force". You can use deadly force if:
1. You would be justified in using force under 9.41; AND
2. The use of force is immediately necessary to (a) prevent commission of the crimes referred to in 9.42(2)(A) OR (b) prevent an escape referred to in 9.42(2)(B); AND
3. You reasonably believe that (a) the property cannot be protected by any other means OR (b) anything other than the use of deadly force exposes you to a substantial risk of death or injury.
If you are gonna shoot the poacher, better make sure that you meet ALL of the criteria in #1, #2 and #3 above.
-
If you are gonna shoot the poacher, better make sure that you meet ALL of the criteria in #1, #2 and #3 above
TY....I hate reading laws I think they are intentionally written to be confusing. The only one on this thread that is saying anything about shooting a poacher onsite no questions asked is AIRHEAD. Everyone else is talking about being threatoned to some extent or at least using your brain.
-
Originally posted by Gunslinger
TY....I hate reading laws I think they are intentionally written to be confusing. The only one on this thread that is saying anything about shooting a poacher onsite no questions asked is AIRHEAD. Everyone else is talking about being threatoned to some extent or at least using your brain.
If the laws were written in "plain English" then everyone would be able to understand them....and us lawyers would be out of work. :D
-
Originally posted by MJHerman
If the laws were written in "plain English" then everyone would be able to understand them....and us lawyers would be out of work. :D
That doesnt sound like that bad of an idea lol JK ;)
-
Originally posted by Airhead
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.
:D
Well airhead you have a right to your opinion sir.
And yes when orderd to kill the enemy that is exactly what I did
followed orders.
I will be the first one to tell you that it has left me with all kinds of head problems as you can imagine.
But It was a job and i was a soldier I did my duty and would proudly do it again if asked to.
On the other hand I have devoted the remainder of my life to helping and healing people I am a texas certified EMT and have been one for 8 years.
We all did odd and crazy watermelon when we where young I just happend to grow up in a military family and was pushed into the military by my father at age 18.
And yes I bought into all the gung ho Bs and still do believe most of it .
At my time of service we where not at "war " with anyone .
But we did have ops going on as we do to this day in central and south america.
And people with my MOS where used often in those areas.
So in closing I do have nothing to prove to you or anyone else.
But if you have some free time and care to learn what you care to look down your nose at please feel free.
You might find some info on the Us Army we site under MOS
Bravo-4
Or you could just continue to be silly.
-
Originally posted by Gunslinger
The only one on this thread that is saying anything about shooting a poacher onsite no questions asked is AIRHEAD. Everyone else is talking about being threatoned to some extent or at least using your brain.
Oh, bull. I was the one who said you had to be threatened, you were the one who said you can shoot people for trespassing.
-
Originally posted by mrblack
Well airhead you have a right to your opinion sir.
And yes when orderd to kill the enemy that is exactly what I did
followed orders.
I will be the first one to tell you that it has left me with all kinds of head problems as you can imagine.
My opinion is that you never killed anyone, much less got a "kick" or a "rush" out of it.
However, I believe the "head problems" part.
-
Originally posted by Gunslinger
probably. Calling 911 and being put on hold isnt gonna save you if your home is about to be invaded.
that's why you need a bomb shelter... 2 years ration supply... M-16s, Bazookas, stinger missiles... camo... flak jackets... claymoores...etc...
Just like the Michigan Millitia....
-
Originally posted by Airhead
Oh, bull. I was the one who said you had to be threatened, you were the one who said you can shoot people for trespassing.
And I also said use common sense in the same post.
See: orange vest
-
Because of your Avatar and my deep respect for the Corps I'm dropping this. Personally I think you've been overcome by Brasso fumes while polishing your buttons, or maybe that Mojave Desert sun, combined with your close-cropped hair, has finally fried your brains.
You might be silly and have bad habits but you've got guts, and that's all the Corps asks.
-
Originally posted by Airhead
My opinion is that you never killed anyone, much less got a "kick" or a "rush" out of it.
However, I believe the "head problems" part.
Like I said I have nothing to prove you or anyone else.
i proved myself to myself long ago and thats all that matters you civillian piece of puke.
-
Originally posted by mrblack
Like I said I have nothing to prove you or anyone else.
i proved myself to myself long ago and thats all that matters you civillian piece of puke.
If you have nothing to prove it's because you have nothing provable, to me or anyone else.
Sniper? Killing? Rush?
How bout...
Kid? Homework? Curfew?
LOLO but u IZ amuzin. :D
-
Ok wise guy I give you an easy one.
My MOS was 11B-Bravo-4.
When you find out what that means I will answer any queations petaining to those MOS.
Time of service 1976-1981
Ft Benning/ traning
FT Bragg/ traning
Ft Leonardwood/traning
FT Ord/ traning
FT Carson/ duty syation part of the 4th mech inf
TDY to the 75th Ranger 2bnd
Rank E-5
Please feel free but nothing to easy ok. I prefere not to waste to much time with you.
-
The "kick or rush" I speak of is that fact that the prey you hunt has the ability to shoot back at you.
unlike babie.
It does things to you it hightens your senses to a very high degree.
And yes in some weird way it is a rush.
Ask anyone who has seen combat thay will tell you that same thing.
Just maybe word it differently.
Some may be angry some may be afraid and some may get a rush out of it.
It all depends on your mental makeup.
Now as far as the morality of it.
Well thats the troubles I'm having with what I have done In tha past.
Tried for years to justify it buy telling myself I was following orders.
But as I have grown older I have a closer realtionship with God.
So don't even judge me untill you haave marched the same paths i have.
Trust me you don't want to go there.
-
Originally posted by Airhead
Because of your Avatar and my deep respect for the Corps I'm dropping this. Personally I think you've been overcome by Brasso fumes while polishing your buttons, or maybe that Mojave Desert sun, combined with your close-cropped hair, has finally fried your brains.
You might be silly and have bad habits but you've got guts, and that's all the Corps asks.
Well said! I'm done as well....as a man named skuzzy once said "the wheels on the bus go round and round"
PS
be advised I've allways had to use neverdull not brasso. But to be completly honest Lausiana Hot Sauce is the best thing for polishing brass and copper. Learned that at the recruit chow hall MCRD.
-
Originally posted by Airhead
You might be silly and have bad habits but you've got guts, and that's all the Corps asks.
My Dad spent 20 years in the Marines.
Trust me It takes more than just Guts to make a good Marine.
BTW I joined the Army to piss my dad off.
And yes it worked we did not speak for 5 years.
-
Originally posted by mrblack
My Dad spent 20 years in the Marines.
Trust me It takes more than just Guts to make a good Marine.
BTW I joined the Army to piss my dad off.
And yes it worked we did not speak for 5 years.
LOL black we allways joked about that people join the army cause they'd never make it in the Corps. Just a joke though, I have the utmost respect for the army...somones gotta occupy the land that we invade JK ;)
-
Originally posted by Gunslinger
LOL black we allways joked about that people join the army cause they'd never make it in the Corps. Just a joke though, I have the utmost respect for the army...somones gotta occupy the land that we invade JK ;)
Hey don't joke about it.
IMHO the Marines are the best Assualt force in the world.
And the average Marine fresh out of boot is far better trained than his Army couter part fresh out of basic.
-
Originally posted by mrblack
Hey don't joke about it.
IMHO the Marines are the best Assualt force in the world.
And the average Marine fresh out of boot is far better trained than his Army couter part fresh out of basic.
I'd believe it. I've read all of Hackworth's books and if half of what he says is true I know they've got problems. I know alot of people dismiss him as a nut who got screwed over by the army and has a grudge, but I think he is sincere in protecting soldiers lives against there own govt. BTW I meant some army MP Augmentees recently who couldnt for the life of them tell me what a BZO was. These guys cary rifles EVERYDAY!
I still have it memorized from BOOT:
Battle site zero: the elvation and windage required to engage a point target from 0 - 300 meters under ideal weather conditions while providing grazing fire from 0 - 300 meters.
ask them for the cycle of operations for the M16A2 and they look even more lost
-
I had to qualify with the M16-A1
But thank God I moved on to the XM-21 sniper weapons system.
Todays snipers have the best gear though.
M-24 for Army and M-40 for the USMC
I only wish I had those when I was In LOL.