GET OFF MY PROPERTY!

Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:

No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.

If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

**Da Boss**

Idiots tend to be depressingly good at procreation, sadly that's all the genepool cares about in the end.

This is a sad story. That poor boy.

**reds8n**

jp400 wrote:
reds8n wrote:Hmm.... so if I hang up one of those "you don't have to be mad to work here, but.." signs up then ...

Sounds a bit dodgy to me, surely for it to be used as evidence in a murder trial you'd have to link it directly to the victim rather than just a general threat to all and sundry.

[amateur lawyers hour/]

Nope.

In a country where free speach is protected, I could hang a sign up that says "Warning! anyone who sets foot on my land will be gutted with a dull knife and your head stuck on the end of a pike for all to see! have a nice day lol" sign on my front door and nobody can do anything about it.

You misunderstand. I was saying using that as evidence would be a bit dodgy in my eyes.

Now if the sign said "warning I will shoot all children" then I think, as Lord Hat was saying, you'd maybe have a case. But I think the warning is too vague in this instance.

**George Spiggott**

grizgrin wrote:That's a joke. It's a sign, and while I am certainly not defending the actions of this knuckle draggin brother-sister combo, the sign was a joke. An obvious one.

Until you actually shoot someone that is. His actions say that the sign was exactly what he thought.

**Hordini**

Technically they didn't do what the sign said though, since the people they shot weren't even trespassers.

Personally, I don't really care about the sign. They shot a kid. Who cares what the sign said?

**FITZZ**

Lordhat wrote:
jp400 wrote:
reds8n wrote:Hmm.... so if I hang up one of those "you don't have to be mad to work here, but.." signs up then ...

Sounds a bit dodgy to me, surely for it to be used as evidence in a murder trial you'd have to link it directly to the victim rather than just a general threat to all and sundry.

[amateur lawyers hour/]

Nope.

In a country where free speach is protected, I could hang a sign up that says "Warning! anyone who sets foot on my land will be gutted with a dull knife and your head stuck on the end of a pike for all to see! have a nice day lol" sign on my front door and nobody can do anything about it.

Until you you actually find somebody on your land, gut them with a dull knife, and pike their head. THEN it's grounds for premeditation. I hope these two backwoods fuckwads are given to the boy's parents for a period of no less than 7 days before being dipped in honey and staked outside an anthill in the Texas desert. Two small movements of a trigger finger, one GIANT leap backwards for gun rights in the U.S.

P.S. If the parents are too 'christian' to apply the appropriate amount of torture, I can see to it that it gets done. I just hope these criminals didn't procreate already, our genepool really can't take much more idiocy.

Lordhat,I belive I may have broken my hand applauding your statements.

**Nofasse 'Eadhunta**

This picture's worth the trains of thought of the couple. How many words is that?

Not too many.

**Ratbarf**

You really like your photoshop don't you nofasse?

Anyways, possible defences for the couple.

"Criminal Mischief is committed if, without the effective consent of the owner, a person: 1) Intentionally or knowingly damages or destroys the property of the owner, or 2) Tampers with the property of the owner and causes momentary loss or sustained inconvenience to the owner or third person."

"In fact, Sec 9.31(a) [of the Penal Code] expressly provides that a person is justified in using deadly force against another when and to the degree he reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary."

"A person is justified in using deadly force against another to protect his property to the degree he reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to prevent the other's imminent commission of arson, burglary, robbery, theft during the nighttime or criminal mischief during the nighttime, and he reasonably believes that the property cannot be protected by any other means."

"A person is justified in using deadly force against another to pervent the other who is fleeing after committing burglary, robbery, or theft during the nighttime, from escaping with the property and he reasonable believes that the property cannot be recovered by any other means; or, the use of force other than deadly force to protect or recover the property would expose him or another to a substantial risk of death or serious bodily injury. (Nighttime is defined as the period 30 minutes after sunset until 30 minutes before sunrise.)"

The problem will be making the court view the shooting as reasonable, (which it might) and that they beleived the off roaders intention was to damage their property. (which they possibly could if they were ripping up their land with their dirtbikes) Possibly by showing that a similar occurence has happened recently.

By the by that quoted stuff is from the Texas Constitution 1992 edition.

**Nofasse 'Eadhunta**

Photoshop is my hero.

Not really. Fun nonetheless.

**Cheese Elemental**

What I'm really confused about it why America believes in shoot-to-kill but not shoot-to-incapacitate. It might have saved this kid's life.

Trust me, a .22 bullet to the chest isn't usually fatal. I've been shot between my lungs before.

Mind you, that was an accident.

**Mattlov**

LuciusAR wrote:Heck even if the kid was dropping a steamer in the middle of their lawn, going out guns blazing cannot possibly be considered an appropriate response.

Inappropriately hilarious.

Quoted for Truth!

**Cheese Elemental**

I've once been forced to shoot someone after they broke into my house. But did I kill them? No, it wasn't necessary to. I shot him in the foot and he hit the floor. No need to kill someone when you can get them tried and humiliated on the news.

**Nofasse 'Eadhunta**

Cheese Elemental wrote:I've once been forced to shoot someone after they broke into my house. But did I kill them? No, it wasn't necessary to. I shot him in the foot and he hit the floor. No need to kill someone when you can get them tried and humiliated on the news.

A nut-shot would have been more effective in that.

"This just in, man breaks into house and gets shot in the balls. Lololol. More details at 11:00"

**spartanghost**

Nofasse 'Eadhunta wrote:
Cheese Elemental wrote:I've once been forced to shoot someone after they broke into my house. But did I kill them? No, it wasn't necessary to. I shot him in the foot and he hit the floor. No need to kill someone when you can get them tried and humiliated on the news.

A nut-shot would have been more effective in that.

"This just in, man breaks into house and gets shot in the balls. Lololol. More details at 11:00"

I'm pretty sure that would cause him to bleed out. do you have any idea how many blood vessels there are down there?

**Frazzled**

George Spiggott wrote:
grizgrin wrote:That's a joke. It's a sign, and while I am certainly not defending the actions of this knuckle draggin brother-sister combo, the sign was a joke. An obvious one.

Until you actually shoot someone that is. His actions say that the sign was exactly what he thought.

exactly. It can be used as evidence to prove the mental state.

Freedom of speech is completely irrelevant in this context. As the phrase goes "you have the right to remain silent. Anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law." including this post...

**Frazzled**

Cheese Elemental wrote:What I'm really confused about it why America believes in shoot-to-kill but not shoot-to-incapacitate. It might have saved this kid's life.

Trust me, a .22 bullet to the chest isn't usually fatal. I've been shot between my lungs before.

Mind you, that was an accident.

Don't be an idiot. Shooting to incapacitate is not realistic in the real world. You claimed in previous thread to have shot a rifle. If so you would know how ignorant that comment is.

Besides, a .22 has killed plenty of people. Ask all the guys the mob hit. That used to be their preferred weapon back in the day.
After all, another .22 is the preferred weapon of armies that actually train their people to shoot everywhere.

I've once been forced to shoot someone after they broke into my house. But did I kill them? No, it wasn't necessary to. I shot him in the foot and he hit the floor. No need to kill someone when you can get them tried and humiliated on the news.

I don't believe you, at all.

**Mattlov**

Sorry, but if it has reached the point to need to fire a weapon at someone, I will NOT fire to incapacitate. You do not leave enemies alive. Simple as that.

Also, in the American system, an dead guy can't sue me. I shoot some donkey-cave burglar in the leg when he breaks into my house, chances are I'll have to pay him when he sues me. That is wrong.

If I pull out a weapon in anger or defense, the objective is to eliminate the target. Anything less is stupid on my part.

**Da Boss**

If I was in a situation where I had to shoot someone, I would also shoot them in the central body mass. Shooting to wound is pretty damn unreliable unless you are an absolutely brilliant shot, and if you miss you've just escalated the situation massively and made the risk of having your firearm used against you higher.
That said I wouldn't shoot someone for breaking into my house unless I thought they were going to try and kill me or my family.

**Kingsley**

Cheese Elemental wrote:I've been shot between my lungs before.

Cheese Elemental wrote:I've once been forced to shoot someone after they broke into my house.

No, you haven't.

Cheese Elemental wrote:The only bad injury I ever had was when I hit my head on the car boot door.

Cheese Elemental's profile wrote:Age: 15

**Frazzled**

Yep.

**generalgrog**

Wow that is incredibly sad, I can't imagine what the father is going through. My son will turn 7 in a few months.

The bottom line these people(the shooters) are clearly unstable, anyone that would shoot a child is missing something either deep in their soul or they are just plain nuts or drugged out of their minds at the time.

GG

**spartanghost**

Fetterkey wrote:
Cheese Elemental wrote:I've been shot between my lungs before.

Cheese Elemental wrote:I've once been forced to shoot someone after they broke into my house.

No, you haven't.

Cheese Elemental wrote:The only bad injury I ever had was when I hit my head on the car boot door.

Cheese Elemental's profile wrote:Age: 15

it has to be said: pwned.

**greenskin lynn**

shooting to wound is not much of an option when what you have are shotguns, or if a person is not a particularly good shot