Richards 0
DaVinci 0
QuoteMost base jumpers who tresspass are merely being mischevious and would at worst run away if someone confronted them. When you stand on someones property doing damage and threatenning the person while refusing to leave and stating your intention to come back (presumably to carry out some harmfull action) you move from mere mischeif to thuggery.
So, you think tresspassing is OK? Its OK to break a law as long as you are not a thug?
Richards 0
QuoteSo, you think tresspassing is OK? Its OK to break a law as long as you are not a thug?
That was not my point at all, and I am not sure that you really believe I meant it that way. I simply distinguished between mischeif and thuggery. Yes trespassing for mischeivious purposes is wrong and you can be charged for it. I was simply saying there is a line drawn between that sort of behaviour and acting like a violent thug, and that the degree of force that I may tolerate someone using on someone who is threatening them on their property would not be acceptable to use on someone who has intended no harm and is leaving without presenting a threat.
Richards
My biggest handicap is that sometimes the hole in the front of my head operates a tad bit faster than the grey matter contained within.
kallend 2,106
QuoteQuoteMost base jumpers who tresspass are merely being mischevious and would at worst run away if someone confronted them. When you stand on someones property doing damage and threatenning the person while refusing to leave and stating your intention to come back (presumably to carry out some harmfull action) you move from mere mischeif to thuggery.
So, you think tresspassing is OK? Its OK to break a law as long as you are not a thug?
Was only 3 weeks ago you told us it was OK to lie to the police.
www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=2254073#2254073
...
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
" there's no duty to retreat" Until recently in Florida there was. And I do believe in Texas you can shoot to kill to defend your property. Correct me if I'm wrongQuoteQuote1) Are you allowed to defend yourself (and property)?
2) If so, under what constraints?
1) Yes.
2) The only constraint is that the force used must be reasonable under all of the circumstances as you believed them to be.
Key things to note are that:
a) it's a jury who gets to decide what is and is not reasonable (ie 12 people just like you)
b) they take into account all of the circumstances
c) those circumstances are as you believed them to be - (eg if you honestly thought he was armed then the jury has to consider the reasonableness of an act against an armed assailant even though in reality you made a mistake and he wasn't actually armed).
d) there is no reasonableness test for your beliefs - (ie so long as the belief was honestly held it doesn't matter how outlandish that belief was (though if it's really outlandish the jury might think you're lying)).
e) there's no duty to retreat
f) there's no duty to warn before striking
g) first strike is perfectly acceptable
h) you can use whatever weapon you like so long as the force afforded by that weapon is reasonable under the circumstances believed by you.
There is a further constraint on the use of lethal force in that it may not be used in defence of property alone. If you or another are threatened then killing is fine, but it's been held that lethal force cannot be justified simply to protect your widescreen TV; ie no matter how much of a scumbag they are a TV simply isn't worth killing for.
So basically the answers to Micro’s posts back on p2 are "yes" "yes" and "yes".
The case I usually give as an example of just how far you can go is that of Attorney-General's Reference (No. 2 of 1983) where it was held that the use of petrol bombs in self defence was entirely reasonable under the circumstances in which the defendant found himself.
I hold it true, whate'er befall;
I feel it, when I sorrow most;
'Tis better to have loved and lost
Than never to have loved at all.
I feel it, when I sorrow most;
'Tis better to have loved and lost
Than never to have loved at all.
I don't know what the laws say where you are but if someone is on your property after dark in Texas and it looks like they are either stealing someting or presenting a threat, you pretty much own them.
I don't see the sense in responding with deadly force in that situation, because from what I read in your post there really was no immediate threat. I am by no means saying they were in the right, but if they were doing nothing *except* trespassing and mouthing off, I don't see deadly force making any sense at all.
That being said, I don't see anything wrong with baiting them into putting themselves in a position where you can legally use deadly force.
Walt
I don't see the sense in responding with deadly force in that situation, because from what I read in your post there really was no immediate threat. I am by no means saying they were in the right, but if they were doing nothing *except* trespassing and mouthing off, I don't see deadly force making any sense at all.
That being said, I don't see anything wrong with baiting them into putting themselves in a position where you can legally use deadly force.
Walt
QuoteQuoteQuoteMost base jumpers who tresspass are merely being mischevious and would at worst run away if someone confronted them. When you stand on someones property doing damage and threatenning the person while refusing to leave and stating your intention to come back (presumably to carry out some harmfull action) you move from mere mischeif to thuggery.
So, you think tresspassing is OK? Its OK to break a law as long as you are not a thug?
Was only 3 weeks ago you told us it was OK to lie to the police.
www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=2254073#2254073
And you're saying it's not?
Police officers routinely lie to suspects who are presumed innocent. Are you ok with that?
Walt
jakee 1,563
QuoteThat being said, I don't see anything wrong with baiting them into putting themselves in a position where you can legally use deadly force.
Are you fucking kidding me?
When the police do things like that to get arrests its called entrapment and it's illegal. Why would you have any desire to play games with other peoples lives?
Do you want to have an ideagasm?
here is an update:
The tresspassing self professed tough guys have not "come back"
damn and I thought they promised![[:/]](/uploads/emoticons/dry.png "[:/]")
The tresspassing self professed tough guys have not "come back"
damn and I thought they promised
QuoteQuoteThat being said, I don't see anything wrong with baiting them into putting themselves in a position where you can legally use deadly force.
Are you fucking kidding me?
When the police do things like that to get arrests its called entrapment and it's illegal. Why would you have any desire to play games with other peoples lives?
People like that are playing games with not only their own lives, but the lives and property of others. I have no sympathy for them.
edited to add:
Years ago, near Austin, a homeowner shot and killed a kid who was stealing hubcaps from his car, which was parked in his driveway. It was a legal kill.
A few years ago in Houston a guy shot someone who was trying to steal his vehicle which was parked on the street. As I recall, he shot with either an AK-47 or SKS from his second story apartment. Again, a legal kill.
Do I think a vehicle or even just the hubcaps are worth killing over? I think the better question is what kind of person thinks those things are worth *dying* over?
In the original post, a couple of guys not only trespassed, but when confronted started talking shit. Really, those guys are both a couple of Darwin Award candidates waiting to happen, IMO.
Walt
jakee 1,563
QuotePeople like that are playing games with not only their own lives, but the lives and property of others. I have no sympathy for them.
So you're answer is what - intentionally escalate a situation that could be resolved peacefully so you could have an excuse to shoot someone?
What the fuck dude?
Do you want to have an ideagasm?
QuoteQuotePeople like that are playing games with not only their own lives, but the lives and property of others. I have no sympathy for them.
So you're answer is what - intentionally escalate a situation that could be resolved peacefully so you could have an excuse to shoot someone?
What the fuck dude?
Good point, we should shower these misguided youths with love and understanding.
edited to add:
I just saw in your profile you're in the UK. No offense intended, but things are different here.
In the US we live in a society where people in most areas of the country are allowed to defend themselves, their loved ones, and their property with deadly force. Anyone who does what the guys in the original post did is a lot more than just wiseass. They were taunting a homeowner who was warning them to leave his property. They had to know that the homeowner may have been armed and the fact that they were taking it so casually implies that *they* may have been armed.
Walt
jakee 1,563
QuoteGood point, we should shower these misguided youths with love and understanding.
edited to add:
I just saw in your profile you're in the UK. No offense intended, but things are different here.
Dude, some things are the same everywhere
.
So, hypothetically, how would you decide who to lure into your trap? People trying to climb over your fance, people giving you lip, or just people on your front yard at night. Fuck it, why stop there! Some deadbeat walks past your yard you don't like the look of just throw a beer can at him or something - that'll make him step up onto your property then his ass is yours! One less bum in the neighbourhood.
Y'know what, I don't even know why I'm discussing this - you'd never do it - just talking tough.
Do you want to have an ideagasm?
Sign of the times I guess.
Richards