No sleep this weekend due to idiots

[spasm3]

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.

Wow! great response!

 

[Jarlaxle]

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.

None of which changes the fact that just defending yourself in court could easily leave you bankrupt! Lawyers are not free.

 

[Scott_mi]

+1 on using/adding some different sighs. Private drive, private property beyond this point or you are trespassing beyond this point signs may be more informational then just the no trespassing signs. As to your sign with directions to the springs being stolen.....sounds like someone (maybe local) not wanting people to know how to find it so easy and having an increase in traffic.

 

[Astro14]

Originally Posted By: Jarlaxle

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.

None of which changes the fact that just defending yourself in court could easily leave you bankrupt! Lawyers are not free.

That might be true. If the DA decides to charge you...which is unlikely if you were reasonable in your use of force. But the "no gun and you go to prison" part of your post was patently untrue, and needed to be addressed. Folks often get the justification for shooting completely wrong, and that includes pundits and reporters.

 

[totegoat]

The road is public as far as the county maintains it.

 

[dareo]

Move out of california? 2nd idea: learn to weld and buy a ton of scrap metal and make giant gate that would intimidate anything that doesnt roll on tracks. Weld it up at night while open carrying a nice firearm.

 

[Jarlaxle]

Originally Posted By: Astro14

Originally Posted By: Jarlaxle

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.

None of which changes the fact that just defending yourself in court could easily leave you bankrupt! Lawyers are not free.

That might be true. If the DA decides to charge you...which is unlikely if you were reasonable in your use of force. But the "no gun and you go to prison" part of your post was patently untrue, and needed to be addressed. Folks often get the justification for shooting completely wrong, and that includes pundits and reporters.

Or if you get a DA who thinks that only cops should have guns, and that actually wants to discourage people from defending themselves. (And yes, one in this area said just that.)

 

[Astro14]

Sadly, those people exist...people who think the ordinary citizen is not to be trusted...it's become common in some circles...