No sleep this weekend due to idiots

Status
Not open for further replies.
Originally Posted By: LubeLuke
Maybe they ignore the signs because so many irresponsible land owners block access to public access ways, or public rights of way.
I'm not sure of the specific laws for the USA, but in many European countries, specifically the UK. There are many public rights of way that go through private property. In these cases it is the law that the land owner must make the land accessible.
I have had many cases where the supposed land owner is shouting at me for trespassing on public rights of way. I always carry maps with me which specifically show where I have the right to access though. There is nothing they can do. They have no right to lock the gate, and I have broken a number of locks to provide myself a thoroughfare.

The case is the same in many other countries where land owners think they have more rights than they actually do.
After all, all THEY do is buy the property, maintain it, and pay the taxes. If you break the lock, walk in, trip, fall and break your leg, how fast do you SUE the landowner?
 
Originally Posted By: GiveMeAVowel
It's coming to that anyhow. The US will be a steaming third world like cesspool in the next 35-40 years, you can count on it.
Half of Leftyfornia is almost there now.
 
Originally Posted By: Kamele0N
Just check with GPS...maybe there is some glitch in a map when you are heading towards that Deep Creek...

And report your findings here....BEFORE you start killing people
smile.gif


https://mapcreator.here.com/mapcreator/
Sure, check every single GPS map program because it's YOUR fault THEY can't read "No Trespassing" signs.
 
Originally Posted By: Sunnyinhollister
+1 on spike strips


That is malicious and likely will result in folks knocking on his door.....

Probably a hot 20 year old looking for the hot springs with her friends and you guilty you wrecked her tires.

I mention that as a space was taken at our ski house near a hopping bar. My father in law goes nuts thinking its a drunken patron esp with Ma plates etc and blocks car in and says he'll give her a piece of his mind and all nuts. Next morning door bell rings he answer to a hot 20 year old in braids with cute friend mistakenly was told to park there. Next I see my father in law helping her push her car out etc off the ice.
 
Originally Posted By: Chris142
Ca is very strict about shooting.cant shoot to protect property.life or death only and trespassing isnt life or death.i cant legaly shoot an intruder inside my house if they are not trying to cause us harm.shooting blanks may very wellget return fire thats not blanks!


I never understood how property could be more valued than a human life.

My initial thought was inaccurate GPS maps.
 
Originally Posted By: HerrStig
Originally Posted By: LubeLuke
Maybe they ignore the signs because so many irresponsible land owners block access to public access ways, or public rights of way.
I'm not sure of the specific laws for the USA, but in many European countries, specifically the UK. There are many public rights of way that go through private property. In these cases it is the law that the land owner must make the land accessible.
I have had many cases where the supposed land owner is shouting at me for trespassing on public rights of way. I always carry maps with me which specifically show where I have the right to access though. There is nothing they can do. They have no right to lock the gate, and I have broken a number of locks to provide myself a thoroughfare.

The case is the same in many other countries where land owners think they have more rights than they actually do.
After all, all THEY do is buy the property, maintain it, and pay the taxes. If you break the lock, walk in, trip, fall and break your leg, how fast do you SUE the landowner?


When talking about the UK one has to understand thet the rights of way pre-date the land ownership. Therefore it requires a legal change to the right of way in order to prevent access. Some landowners for instance erect barbed wire across rights of way to deter people from using the route and quite rightly some determined walkers cut those fences as they are illegal. See below.

https://www.gov.uk/guidance/public-rights-of-way-landowner-responsibilities
 
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: Chris142
i cant legaly shoot an intruder inside my house if they are not trying to cause us harm.


That is outrageous.

You couldn't pay me to live in California.
 
Originally Posted By: CELICA_XX
Originally Posted By: Chris142
i cant legaly shoot an intruder inside my house if they are not trying to cause us harm.


That is outrageous.

You couldn't pay me to live in California.


Read between the lines, if the perp is dead there's
likely no one who can counter what the homeowner states when
the police show up.

A stranger in your home, uninvited? Dead? Oh well. An intruder said they were going to kill you with their gun, whether or not they had one, so what they threatened you. Bang, their dead. Case closed.
 
Unless he has a gun, you go to prison, or you spend every penny you have staying out, and end up penniless, homeless, unemployable, and possibly in prison anyway.
 
Originally Posted By: Jarlaxle
Unless he has a gun, you go to prison, or you spend every penny you have staying out, and end up penniless, homeless, unemployable, and possibly in prison anyway.


No. It is the criminals word against the homeowner, the criminal invaded a home, and threatened the homeowner and now is dead, as long as the homeowner believed the perp had a gun and was going to injure him he has every right to shoot to kill. The best part is that there won't be any jury that will convict that homeowner. Hint, hint, always have a jury trial in these cases, and I can tell you that folks like myself will find a way to get on that jury and make sure that a decent citizen doesn't get jail time for eliminating scum of the earth that almost every single time has a long rap sheet. You see this person is doing a public service by eliminating a subhuman that will if not stopped this time end up really killing an innocent person. See, that is easy.
 
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: Jarlaxle
Unless he has a gun, you go to prison, or you spend every penny you have staying out, and end up penniless, homeless, unemployable, and possibly in prison anyway.


As I understand it if you are in fear and you don't have the option of running or fighting you are justified to shoot. An old person may not have an option to run or fight whether the intruder has a gun or not.
 
Originally Posted By: Alfred_B
Lots of couch warriors here.


If someone invades your home and threatens you with bodily harm, I'm sure you're going to try and calmly discuss the matter with the thug, right, maybe you won't have to and he'll just leave?
whistle.gif
 
Originally Posted By: GiveMeAVowel
Originally Posted By: Alfred_B
Lots of couch warriors here.


If someone invades your home and threatens you with bodily harm, I'm sure you're going to try and calmly discuss the matter with the thug, right, maybe you won't have to and he'll just leave?
whistle.gif



Calling a person a "subhuman" is a sign of serious worldview flaws.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Untermensch
 
Originally Posted By: Jarlaxle
Unless he has a gun, you go to prison, or you spend every penny you have staying out, and end up penniless, homeless, unemployable, and possibly in prison anyway.


No...just...no...

The use of lethal force must be necessary, and proportional. And the standard of judgement is "reasonable man"...who knew only what the user of force knew or had reason to believe.

So, necessity comes from the ability, opportunity, and intent of the person doing the threatening. A lethal threat only exists if that person is capable of killing or doing severe bodily harm (ability), that person is close enough to do so (in your house certainly qualifies), and they have the intent to do so....and if all three of those elements are present, then a lethal response (which is proportional) is justifiable.

Now, if the defender reasonably believes those three elements are present, the shooting (proportional response in defense) is justified...even if we later discover that their perception was wrong by discovery of facts that were not evident to the defender.

So, a much larger adversary, or one armed with a knife, or a bat, or a golf club, or more than one adversary, would present a lethal threat if they had combined that ability with the intent (breaking into your house) and the opportunity (they were in your house).

It's difficult to determine the intent of someone who breaks in when you're home. But short of a polite question and answer session, if the intruder(s) know you're home, then it's reasonable to assume that their target is you, not your new 4K TV and the the wife's jewelry. Making certain that they know you're home is prudent (racking shotgun slide, shouting the command to get out, etc. are all reasonable techniques to determine intent) but only if you've got the time to do so.

So, it's pretty easy to see that the intruder without a gun, who breaks into a house, say, the house occupied only by a 130# woman, would present a lethal threat to her and her shooting him would be considered self defense under the law.
 
Originally Posted By: Astro14
Originally Posted By: Jarlaxle
Unless he has a gun, you go to prison, or you spend every penny you have staying out, and end up penniless, homeless, unemployable, and possibly in prison anyway.


No...just...no...

The use of lethal force must be necessary, and proportional. And the standard of judgement is "reasonable man"...who knew only what the user of force knew or had reason to believe.

So, necessity comes from the ability, opportunity, and intent of the person doing the threatening. A lethal threat only exists if that person is capable of killing or doing severe bodily harm (ability), that person is close enough to do so (in your house certainly qualifies), and they have the intent to do so....and if all three of those elements are present, then a lethal response (which is proportional) is justifiable.

Now, if the defender reasonably believes those three elements are present, the shooting (proportional response in defense) is justified...even if we later discover that their perception was wrong by discovery of facts that were not evident to the defender.

So, a much larger adversary, or one armed with a knife, or a bat, or a golf club, or more than one adversary, would present a lethal threat if they had combined that ability with the intent (breaking into your house) and the opportunity (they were in your house).

It's difficult to determine the intent of someone who breaks in when you're home. But short of a polite question and answer session, if the intruder(s) know you're home, then it's reasonable to assume that their target is you, not your new 4K TV and the the wife's jewelry. Making certain that they know you're home is prudent (racking shotgun slide, shouting the command to get out, etc. are all reasonable techniques to determine intent) but only if you've got the time to do so.

So, it's pretty easy to see that the intruder without a gun, who breaks into a house, say, the house occupied only by a 130# woman, would present a lethal threat to her and her shooting him would be considered self defense under the law.


As always, well stated Astro.
 
Originally Posted By: The_Eric
Originally Posted By: Astro14
Originally Posted By: Jarlaxle
Unless he has a gun, you go to prison, or you spend every penny you have staying out, and end up penniless, homeless, unemployable, and possibly in prison anyway.


No...just...no...

The use of lethal force must be necessary, and proportional. And the standard of judgement is "reasonable man"...who knew only what the user of force knew or had reason to believe.

So, necessity comes from the ability, opportunity, and intent of the person doing the threatening. A lethal threat only exists if that person is capable of killing or doing severe bodily harm (ability), that person is close enough to do so (in your house certainly qualifies), and they have the intent to do so....and if all three of those elements are present, then a lethal response (which is proportional) is justifiable.

Now, if the defender reasonably believes those three elements are present, the shooting (proportional response in defense) is justified...even if we later discover that their perception was wrong by discovery of facts that were not evident to the defender.

So, a much larger adversary, or one armed with a knife, or a bat, or a golf club, or more than one adversary, would present a lethal threat if they had combined that ability with the intent (breaking into your house) and the opportunity (they were in your house).

It's difficult to determine the intent of someone who breaks in when you're home. But short of a polite question and answer session, if the intruder(s) know you're home, then it's reasonable to assume that their target is you, not your new 4K TV and the the wife's jewelry. Making certain that they know you're home is prudent (racking shotgun slide, shouting the command to get out, etc. are all reasonable techniques to determine intent) but only if you've got the time to do so.

So, it's pretty easy to see that the intruder without a gun, who breaks into a house, say, the house occupied only by a 130# woman, would present a lethal threat to her and her shooting him would be considered self defense under the law.


As always, well stated Astro.


+1
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top