Man buys Hummer, Eco-terrorists wreck it

[Hayabusa Rider]

I wish they would beat my Taurus

OK,

Beating car = Crime -> punishment.

Questions?

Personally, I'd like Hummers to be subject to the same fuel regs as passenger cars. As far as the "rich" go, I suspect that people in that neck of the woods who drive the Prius have similar incomes. Someone decided that their outrage trumped the law, and were justified because of it. It does not. Because I don't like something another legally owns and uses does not give me the right to destroy it.

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: Pliablemoose

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: Nebor

Originally posted by: feralkid

Originally posted by: GoPackGo
I say he gets it fixed, stalks his car until they come back, then he shoots and kills them both...feeding their dead carcasses to the wolves.

So you think he'd believe protecting his gas-hog is worth commiting a double murder?

In 25 states, Castle Doctrine allows one to treat their car as their home, and thus defend the prying or intrusion of such as a direct threat on their life.

I know eve before we had Castle Doctrine in Texas, there was a man in Arlington, Texas who saw 4 teenagers stealing the wheels off his car, stepped outside with an AR15, and killed all 4 of them. He was never charged.

If you fuck with other peoples' property, don't be suprised if you end up dead.

Reminds me of the story of the Zen master, who, returning to his hut found thieves stealing his only possession, a rice bowl. He said, "Too bad I can't give them this moon."

I suspect the Zen master didn't have his rice bowl financed for the next 6 years or live in is mother's hut. :evil:

You missed the whole point.

He didn't have an AR15.

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider
As far as the "rich" go, I suspect that people in that neck of the woods who drive the Prius have similar incomes.

Someone decided that their outrage trumped the law, and were justified because of it.

It does not.

Because I don't like something another legally owns and uses does not give me the right to destroy it.

While true the point is that Americans are getting more outraged with the rich everyday:

7-20-2007 Police: Burglary crew hits L.A. mansions

LOS ANGELES - A team of burglars has lifted more than $7 million in jewelry, rare books and cash from dozens of homes in the city's wealthiest neighborhoods, slipping in and out without tripping elaborate alarms or leaving so much as a fingerprint behind, authorities say.

Over the past year, they have hit the homes of celebrities, sports stars and corporate tycoons, plus non-celebrity mansions in Brentwood, Beverly Hills and the "Platinum Triangle" of Bel-Air, Encino and Holmby Hills, Lt. Ray Lombardo said Thursday.

"These guys are a two-man hillside crime wave. They are quick hit artists," said Councilman Jack Weiss. "They are clearly knowledgeable and sophisticated."

==========================================
Political Correctness is a doctrine fostered by a delusional liberal
minority and by the mainstream media, which holds forth the proposition that
it is entirely possible to pick up a turd by the clean end."

 

[jonks]

Originally posted by: Pliablemoose
I literally can't believe some of the responses to this.

I personally don't like Hummers but because I'm not a fan of poorly engineered vehicles.

Moonie, taking a Hummer to task while owning a Cadillac is hypocritical, and not only that but if you own 2 cars, you've used up the resources for 2 vehicles, and by your logic, that's not justifiable either.

And that asthmatic child is far more likely to be affected by coal fired power plants or indoor pollution, poorly designed HVAC systems in schools, diesel trucks with higher particulate emissions etc.

<--grateful I live in Texas where we can shoot assholes like those vandals.

sigh

Cue smug alert sirens...

I haven't studied Texas criminal law, and can't quite tell how serious you are, but I don't know of any state where the use of deadly force is justified in defense of property where human life isn't in danger. If you walked out of your house and saw a guy in the street beating the crap out of your car, and you shot and killed him, you'd be going to jail in my town (and rightfully so.) Maybe Texas is different.

 

[Train]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674
I certainly don't condone what happened to this guy.

However it clearly shows the country is getting more fed up with the rich everyday.

You reap what you sow.

Owning a $38k car makes you rich? You never cease to surprise me Dave. I really think you should have yourself commited, your delusions are quite persistent.

And by your standards, the people who did this (his neighbors) were also rich.

 

[Nebor]

Originally posted by: sirjonk

Originally posted by: Pliablemoose
I literally can't believe some of the responses to this.

I personally don't like Hummers but because I'm not a fan of poorly engineered vehicles.

Moonie, taking a Hummer to task while owning a Cadillac is hypocritical, and not only that but if you own 2 cars, you've used up the resources for 2 vehicles, and by your logic, that's not justifiable either.

And that asthmatic child is far more likely to be affected by coal fired power plants or indoor pollution, poorly designed HVAC systems in schools, diesel trucks with higher particulate emissions etc.

<--grateful I live in Texas where we can shoot assholes like those vandals.

sigh

Cue smug alert sirens...

I haven't studied Texas criminal law, and can't quite tell how serious you are, but I don't know of any state where the use of deadly force is justified in defense of property where human life isn't in danger. If you walked out of your house and saw a guy in the street beating the crap out of your car, and you shot and killed him, you'd be going to jail in my town (and rightfully so.) Maybe Texas is different.

Well, like I said earlier, 25 states have Castle Doctrine, which not only holds that your car and home are your castle, and thus always defensible with deadly force, but also eliminated the duty to retreat.

So basically it would go like this:
I come strolling out of my garage and see some dirty hippy slashing my tires
Me: Hey, what the fuck?
Dirty hippy stands up and turns to face me, knife in hand
H&K USP Compact (just happens to be what I'm carrying today): BANG BANG BANG

 

[jonks]

Originally posted by: Nebor

Originally posted by: sirjonk

Originally posted by: Pliablemoose
I literally can't believe some of the responses to this.

I personally don't like Hummers but because I'm not a fan of poorly engineered vehicles.

Moonie, taking a Hummer to task while owning a Cadillac is hypocritical, and not only that but if you own 2 cars, you've used up the resources for 2 vehicles, and by your logic, that's not justifiable either.

And that asthmatic child is far more likely to be affected by coal fired power plants or indoor pollution, poorly designed HVAC systems in schools, diesel trucks with higher particulate emissions etc.

<--grateful I live in Texas where we can shoot assholes like those vandals.

sigh

Cue smug alert sirens...

I haven't studied Texas criminal law, and can't quite tell how serious you are, but I don't know of any state where the use of deadly force is justified in defense of property where human life isn't in danger. If you walked out of your house and saw a guy in the street beating the crap out of your car, and you shot and killed him, you'd be going to jail in my town (and rightfully so.) Maybe Texas is different.

Well, like I said earlier, 25 states have Castle Doctrine, which not only holds that your car and home are your castle, and thus always defensible with deadly force, but also eliminated the duty to retreat.

So basically it would go like this:
I come strolling out of my garage and see some dirty hippy slashing my tires
Me: Hey, what the fuck?
Dirty hippy stands up and turns to face me, knife in hand
H&K USP Compact (just happens to be what I'm carrying today): BANG BANG BANG

Not quite. You're confused about the legal principle. Deadly force is only authorized when there is a threat to persons, and NEVER authorized to protect property. Castle doctrine is not about protecting your car or your house, its about protecing your and your families lives. You cannot kill someone for simply damaging your car. Your scenario changes the facts to include a possible threat to your life. If you walk up to your car and are standing near the guy when he turns with the knife, you have a reasonable self-defense claim. And I haven't done the research, but castle doctrine for cars may only apply if you are actually INSIDE the car.

But a guy with a knife in the street sticking your tires + you on your front stoop + you shoot and kill him = Jail

 

[BrunoPuntzJones]

Originally posted by: sirjonk

Originally posted by: Pliablemoose
I literally can't believe some of the responses to this.

I personally don't like Hummers but because I'm not a fan of poorly engineered vehicles.

Moonie, taking a Hummer to task while owning a Cadillac is hypocritical, and not only that but if you own 2 cars, you've used up the resources for 2 vehicles, and by your logic, that's not justifiable either.

And that asthmatic child is far more likely to be affected by coal fired power plants or indoor pollution, poorly designed HVAC systems in schools, diesel trucks with higher particulate emissions etc.

<--grateful I live in Texas where we can shoot assholes like those vandals.

sigh

Cue smug alert sirens...

I haven't studied Texas criminal law, and can't quite tell how serious you are, but I don't know of any state where the use of deadly force is justified in defense of property where human life isn't in danger. If you walked out of your house and saw a guy in the street beating the crap out of your car, and you shot and killed him, you'd be going to jail in my town (and rightfully so.) Maybe Texas is different.

In TX deadly force can be used to protect personal property from theft during the night. Must be on your real property or real property you are authorized to be occupying (such as your place of business).

I'll find the links after lunch.

 

[Train]

Originally posted by: sirjonk

Originally posted by: Nebor

Originally posted by: sirjonk

Originally posted by: Pliablemoose
I literally can't believe some of the responses to this.

I personally don't like Hummers but because I'm not a fan of poorly engineered vehicles.

Moonie, taking a Hummer to task while owning a Cadillac is hypocritical, and not only that but if you own 2 cars, you've used up the resources for 2 vehicles, and by your logic, that's not justifiable either.

And that asthmatic child is far more likely to be affected by coal fired power plants or indoor pollution, poorly designed HVAC systems in schools, diesel trucks with higher particulate emissions etc.

<--grateful I live in Texas where we can shoot assholes like those vandals.

sigh

Cue smug alert sirens...

I haven't studied Texas criminal law, and can't quite tell how serious you are, but I don't know of any state where the use of deadly force is justified in defense of property where human life isn't in danger. If you walked out of your house and saw a guy in the street beating the crap out of your car, and you shot and killed him, you'd be going to jail in my town (and rightfully so.) Maybe Texas is different.

Well, like I said earlier, 25 states have Castle Doctrine, which not only holds that your car and home are your castle, and thus always defensible with deadly force, but also eliminated the duty to retreat.

So basically it would go like this:
I come strolling out of my garage and see some dirty hippy slashing my tires
Me: Hey, what the fuck?
Dirty hippy stands up and turns to face me, knife in hand
H&K USP Compact (just happens to be what I'm carrying today): BANG BANG BANG

Not quite. You're confused about the legal principle. Deadly force is only authorized when there is a threat to persons, and NEVER authorized to protect property. Castle doctrine is not about protecting your car or your house, its about protecing your and your families lives. You cannot kill someone for simply damaging your car. Your scenario changes the facts to include a possible threat to your life. If you walk up to your car and are standing near the guy when he turns with the knife, you have a reasonable self-defense claim. And I haven't done the research, but castle doctrine for cars may only apply if you are actually INSIDE the car.

But a guy with a knife in the street sticking your tires + you on your front stoop + you shoot and kill him = Jail

Ya don't kill him, could get ugly for you, hippies have lawyers these days. Besides, it's more fun to just shoot out one (or both) of his kneecaps and watch him squirm in pain until the police get there. They won't be able to call it deadly force because you knew all along he was going to live, you just wanted him to stop vandalising your stuff.

 

[Nebor]

Originally posted by: sirjonk

Originally posted by: Nebor

Originally posted by: sirjonk

Originally posted by: Pliablemoose
I literally can't believe some of the responses to this.

I personally don't like Hummers but because I'm not a fan of poorly engineered vehicles.

Moonie, taking a Hummer to task while owning a Cadillac is hypocritical, and not only that but if you own 2 cars, you've used up the resources for 2 vehicles, and by your logic, that's not justifiable either.

And that asthmatic child is far more likely to be affected by coal fired power plants or indoor pollution, poorly designed HVAC systems in schools, diesel trucks with higher particulate emissions etc.

<--grateful I live in Texas where we can shoot assholes like those vandals.

sigh

Cue smug alert sirens...

I haven't studied Texas criminal law, and can't quite tell how serious you are, but I don't know of any state where the use of deadly force is justified in defense of property where human life isn't in danger. If you walked out of your house and saw a guy in the street beating the crap out of your car, and you shot and killed him, you'd be going to jail in my town (and rightfully so.) Maybe Texas is different.

Well, like I said earlier, 25 states have Castle Doctrine, which not only holds that your car and home are your castle, and thus always defensible with deadly force, but also eliminated the duty to retreat.

So basically it would go like this:
I come strolling out of my garage and see some dirty hippy slashing my tires
Me: Hey, what the fuck?
Dirty hippy stands up and turns to face me, knife in hand
H&K USP Compact (just happens to be what I'm carrying today): BANG BANG BANG

Not quite. You're confused about the legal principle. Deadly force is only authorized when there is a threat to persons, and NEVER authorized to protect property. Castle doctrine is not about protecting your car or your house, its about protecing your and your families lives. You cannot kill someone for simply damaging your car. Your scenario changes the facts to include a possible threat to your life. If you walk up to your car and are standing near the guy when he turns with the knife, you have a reasonable self-defense claim. And I haven't done the research, but castle doctrine for cars may only apply if you are actually INSIDE the car.

But a guy with a knife in the street sticking your tires + you on your front stoop + you shoot and kill him = Jail

Yeah, I did make that situation more clear.

And yes, Castle Doctrine basically says no matter where you are, your house, your car, or your table at a restaurant, you have no duty to retreat from ne'er-do-well's before using deadly force.

And plenty of states do allow the use of deadly force to protect property. In Texas, if someone is stealing your property, and the sun is down, you are legally authorized to use deadly force to keep your property from being taken.

I'm not saying that's a good thing, or something I would do, but the law does allow for it.

It's safe to say that in Texas, if you're the good guy, and you shoot a bad guy (someone doing something shady, maybe has a criminal record) you're not going to be charged. I've been involved in 2 shootings and neither time did I even go to jail. Just lost my gun to evidence for a couple weeks.

 

[Nebor]

Originally posted by: BrunoPuntzJones

Originally posted by: sirjonk

Originally posted by: Pliablemoose
I literally can't believe some of the responses to this.

I personally don't like Hummers but because I'm not a fan of poorly engineered vehicles.

Moonie, taking a Hummer to task while owning a Cadillac is hypocritical, and not only that but if you own 2 cars, you've used up the resources for 2 vehicles, and by your logic, that's not justifiable either.

And that asthmatic child is far more likely to be affected by coal fired power plants or indoor pollution, poorly designed HVAC systems in schools, diesel trucks with higher particulate emissions etc.

<--grateful I live in Texas where we can shoot assholes like those vandals.

sigh

Cue smug alert sirens...

I haven't studied Texas criminal law, and can't quite tell how serious you are, but I don't know of any state where the use of deadly force is justified in defense of property where human life isn't in danger. If you walked out of your house and saw a guy in the street beating the crap out of your car, and you shot and killed him, you'd be going to jail in my town (and rightfully so.) Maybe Texas is different.

In TX deadly force can be used to protect personal property from theft during the night. Must be on your real property or real property you are authorized to be occupying (such as your place of business).

I'll find the links after lunch.

This guy knows what he's talking about. :thumbsup:

 

[jonks]

Originally posted by: BrunoPuntzJones

Originally posted by: sirjonk

Originally posted by: Pliablemoose
I literally can't believe some of the responses to this.

I personally don't like Hummers but because I'm not a fan of poorly engineered vehicles.

Moonie, taking a Hummer to task while owning a Cadillac is hypocritical, and not only that but if you own 2 cars, you've used up the resources for 2 vehicles, and by your logic, that's not justifiable either.

And that asthmatic child is far more likely to be affected by coal fired power plants or indoor pollution, poorly designed HVAC systems in schools, diesel trucks with higher particulate emissions etc.

<--grateful I live in Texas where we can shoot assholes like those vandals.

sigh

Cue smug alert sirens...

I haven't studied Texas criminal law, and can't quite tell how serious you are, but I don't know of any state where the use of deadly force is justified in defense of property where human life isn't in danger. If you walked out of your house and saw a guy in the street beating the crap out of your car, and you shot and killed him, you'd be going to jail in my town (and rightfully so.) Maybe Texas is different.

In TX deadly force can be used to protect personal property from theft during the night. Must be on your real property or real property you are authorized to be occupying (such as your place of business).

I'll find the links after lunch.

I'll read them when you post them, but I'm going to guess they aren't about protecting property. As you state you have to be on your real property, meaning home or place of business, and the reasoning is not to enable you to protect your property, but the conclusion that if someone enters your land with intent to commit a crime, they may be armed and the homeowner shouldn't have to wonder whether or not they are armed.

For the record, I'm all in favor of castle doctrine in the home. If someone enters your house to commit a crime they are putting their own life in jeopardy. Of course you could always invite the next door neighbor over for a midnite bbq, you know that one who annoys the crap out of you, and then just blow him away and claim honest mistake

 

[Nebor]

Originally posted by: sirjonk

Originally posted by: BrunoPuntzJones

Originally posted by: sirjonk

Originally posted by: Pliablemoose
I literally can't believe some of the responses to this.

I personally don't like Hummers but because I'm not a fan of poorly engineered vehicles.

Moonie, taking a Hummer to task while owning a Cadillac is hypocritical, and not only that but if you own 2 cars, you've used up the resources for 2 vehicles, and by your logic, that's not justifiable either.

And that asthmatic child is far more likely to be affected by coal fired power plants or indoor pollution, poorly designed HVAC systems in schools, diesel trucks with higher particulate emissions etc.

<--grateful I live in Texas where we can shoot assholes like those vandals.

sigh

Cue smug alert sirens...

I haven't studied Texas criminal law, and can't quite tell how serious you are, but I don't know of any state where the use of deadly force is justified in defense of property where human life isn't in danger. If you walked out of your house and saw a guy in the street beating the crap out of your car, and you shot and killed him, you'd be going to jail in my town (and rightfully so.) Maybe Texas is different.

In TX deadly force can be used to protect personal property from theft during the night. Must be on your real property or real property you are authorized to be occupying (such as your place of business).

I'll find the links after lunch.

I'll read them when you post them, but I'm going to guess they aren't about protecting property. As you state you have to be on your real property, meaning home or place of business, and the reasoning is not to enable you to protect your property, but the conclusion that if someone enters your land with intent to commit a crime, they may be armed and the homeowner shouldn't have to wonder whether or not they are armed.

For the record, I'm all in favor of castle doctrine in the home. If someone enters your house to commit a crime they are putting their own life in jeopardy. Of course you could always invite the next door neighbor over for a midnite bbq, you know that one who annoys the crap out of you, and then just blow him away and claim honest mistake

Sec. 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.

So it could just be someone smashing your car, and you'd be within the bounds of the law to blow them away.

 

[piasabird]

Arrest these Eco Terrorists for committing a Terrorist act or under some kind of Hate Crime law. How about a law suit claiming discrimination or violation of Civil Rights. When a group of people or a person try to push their agenda on an individual this qualifies them as a Gang. I say total the car and then make them pay for every penny and perform guard duty on the vehicle every night till they pay for it.

 

[jonks]

Originally posted by: Nebor

Originally posted by: sirjonk

Originally posted by: BrunoPuntzJones

Originally posted by: sirjonk

Originally posted by: Pliablemoose
I literally can't believe some of the responses to this.

I personally don't like Hummers but because I'm not a fan of poorly engineered vehicles.

Moonie, taking a Hummer to task while owning a Cadillac is hypocritical, and not only that but if you own 2 cars, you've used up the resources for 2 vehicles, and by your logic, that's not justifiable either.

And that asthmatic child is far more likely to be affected by coal fired power plants or indoor pollution, poorly designed HVAC systems in schools, diesel trucks with higher particulate emissions etc.

<--grateful I live in Texas where we can shoot assholes like those vandals.

sigh

Cue smug alert sirens...

I haven't studied Texas criminal law, and can't quite tell how serious you are, but I don't know of any state where the use of deadly force is justified in defense of property where human life isn't in danger. If you walked out of your house and saw a guy in the street beating the crap out of your car, and you shot and killed him, you'd be going to jail in my town (and rightfully so.) Maybe Texas is different.

In TX deadly force can be used to protect personal property from theft during the night. Must be on your real property or real property you are authorized to be occupying (such as your place of business).

I'll find the links after lunch.

I'll read them when you post them, but I'm going to guess they aren't about protecting property. As you state you have to be on your real property, meaning home or place of business, and the reasoning is not to enable you to protect your property, but the conclusion that if someone enters your land with intent to commit a crime, they may be armed and the homeowner shouldn't have to wonder whether or not they are armed.

For the record, I'm all in favor of castle doctrine in the home. If someone enters your house to commit a crime they are putting their own life in jeopardy. Of course you could always invite the next door neighbor over for a midnite bbq, you know that one who annoys the crap out of you, and then just blow him away and claim honest mistake

Sec. 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.

So it could just be someone smashing your car, and you'd be within the bounds of the law to blow them away.

I admit I was incorrect in my assumption that deadly force is NEVER authorized to protect property. Clearly it is allowable by this Texas statute (the only state that has this law?), but your example is incorrect.

Assuming a couple of guys are beating up your car at night, under (2) you would have to argue that you reasonably believed deadly force was necessary to stop them, i.e. that shooting into the air wouldn't have stopped them from continuing to beat up the car. (3A) requires that the property couldn't have been protected by any other means, again, for ex, "yelling get the hell away from the car or I'll shoot!"

Also, (2A) states force is allowed "to prevent the other's imminent commission" of the named offenses. I wonder if once they have started beating up the car, you can't shoot them since you won't be preventing an imminent commission, you'd be stopping an ongoing commission.

If you walk out of your house with a gun and shoot a couple guys beating up your car, you will probably be prosecuted. Of course a Texas jury would probably let you off, but still

Here's one from Utah. http://www.ksl.com/?nid=148&sid=1494525
Dude fired six shots at an intruder in his backyard. He's charged with attempted murder. Still looking for a similar texas situation

 

[Sheik Yerbouti]

They had no right to do this to his property. I'm a tree hugger and damn proud of it, but I'm not an asshole (well most of the time, anyway)

 

[exdeath]

Originally posted by: marincounty

Originally posted by: senseamp

Originally posted by: marincounty

Originally posted by: senseamp
Are you claiming vandalizing someones car doesn't hurt anybody? Care to put your money where your mouth is and let me vandalize your car? I will take the drive to Marin for that.

It is a property crime, not a violent crime that harms a person. I didn't say it wasn't a crime, just not a major crime that deserves someone being knifed , shot or bombed.
If you would like to vandalize my car (maybe you already did?) bring it, because it is worth about $400 blue book.
I will simply report you to the police and let them take appropriate action.
Oh, and thanks for the warning.

Why would you report it to the police if it doesn't hurt anybody?

It is a property CRIME, get it. Notice I didn't say I would knife you or shoot you.
Do you understand that crimes against property are different than crimes directed against persons?

Bullshit. It's one and the same. I exchange a portion of my limited life in the form of labor in order to acquire property. Therefore an assault on my property IS an assault on my life.

I don't bust my ass for years so one asshole can take it away in the blink of an eye. I will take his property in return as compensation, up to and including his own life if that is the only property he is able to give. The idea of private property, and the idea that life and property are one and the same, is the basis of our Constitution. (whether or not 'laws' are unconstitutional or not and should be followed or not is another argument) Hence peoples property can be taken only if that person has wronged another, be it fines and restitution for wrong doing, or their most valuable of property, their own life. An individual (note I didn't say person) who expresses disrespect for the boundary of private property ownership, regardless if that property is a life or a material possession, is an individual who has shown his unwillingness to coexist peacefully with society.

As for the law and the legal ramifications, understanding of the law goes a long way. I can shoot someone for stealing my car in a state that does not allow deadly force to prevent theft of property. How? Stand in the path of the vehicle and demand that he leave immediately while using only reasonable and lawful non deadly physical force to bar the thief from leaving with your vehicle. As soon as the thief puts the car in gear and starts moving, he is committing assault with a motor vehicle, a deadly weapon, and deadly force is justified in self defense. And I will be in full compliance with the law. How do you like that?

And if I see somebody trespassing on my property with a weapon, lets just say, I don't know what they are doing, going to do, or why, and I don't care. Intruder + weapon = immediate reaction and legal under my state and most others (except for socialist states like CA, NY, etc).

The typical response from your kind is to get pissy and vow to change the laws so I have no recourse and so that criminals are protected so you can feel smug, when it should be to encourage people not to be criminals in the first place.

Actually I don't even care if people want to be criminals if they agree to keep it in their own neighborhoods. If two people are engaged in a shootout because someone ripped off a drug dealer or flashed a gang sign, as far as I'm concerned if both parties have guns and agreed to engage in the acts willfully with each other, they are all willing participants, and as long as they don't damage any bystanders property (stray bullets hitting cars and people), they can kill each other for all I care. None of my business as long as it doesn't cross my property line.

But when your actions cross that private property boundary against the will of the private property owner, you forfeit all right to protection from having your own private property rights violated in retaliation, up to and including the property you call your body.

 

[Moonbeam]

Moonbeam makes a mental note to himself:

"Self, if you ever decide to take up a life of thievery in Texas, make sure, ,before you lift anything, to be certain first the owners are dead."

 

[exdeath]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Moonbeam makes a mental note to himself:

"Self, if you ever decide to take up a life of thievery in Texas, make sure, ,before you lift anything, to be certain first the owners are dead."

How about simply: don't take other people's shit.

Or is that too much for you to grasp?

 

[jonks]

Originally posted by: exdeath

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Moonbeam makes a mental note to himself:

"Self, if you ever decide to take up a life of thievery in Texas, make sure, ,before you lift anything, to be certain first the owners are dead."

How about simply: don't take other people's shit.

Or is that too much for you to grasp?

Too subtle Moonbeam

English to English translation: what was implied there was there WILL be criminals who WILL steal. Always have been, always will be. With the "if I catch you I'll kill you" mentality, those burglars have every reason to kill you instead of trying to be stealthy about taking your stuff.

I find it ironic that between the "socialist states" which are supposed to be dens of perversity and sin, and the rest of the country which is supposed to be full of the righteous god fearing folk who constantly spout how they try to cultivate a culture of life, its the "good people" who want to blow away a couple of kids for vandalism.

Are all of the right leaning P&N of this mindset?

 

[exdeath]

Originally posted by: sirjonk

Originally posted by: exdeath

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Moonbeam makes a mental note to himself:

"Self, if you ever decide to take up a life of thievery in Texas, make sure, ,before you lift anything, to be certain first the owners are dead."

How about simply: don't take other people's shit.

Or is that too much for you to grasp?

Too subtle Moonbeam

English to English translation: what was implied there was there WILL be criminals who WILL steal. Always have been, always will be. With the "if I catch you I'll kill you" mentality, those burglars have every reason to kill you instead of trying to be stealthy about taking your stuff.

I find it ironic that between the "socialist states" which are supposed to be dens of perversity and sin, and the rest of the country which is supposed to be full of the righteous god fearing folk who constantly spout how they try to cultivate a culture of life, its the "good people" who want to blow away a couple of kids for vandalism.

Are all of the right leaning P&N of this mindset?

As you just alluded to, someone willing to steal your property isn't far off from being willing to kill you to get it. So you are saying it's safe to assume that if they are on my property stealing from me that my life is also in danger; but I already assume that. If someone is violating my private property rights, who is to say where they will draw the line? Is my life and body theirs to take as freely as they would my car, stereo, TV, watch, home? How about the intangible things they take like me right to feel secure in my own home, the right to live the lifestyle I chose without interference from others, the right to know that something I worked blood sweat and tears for will be there the next morning when I wake up?

Who has less value for human life, the person minding his own business who would kill only because he was put into a situation he didn't want in order to protect his property and livelihood, or the individual who would dismiss the life of any person they see fit because they simply want some insignificant trinket that doesn't belong to them so they can get their next crack rock?

And these weren't kids, these were 30's yuppies, environmentalist zealots and leftist communists, all the more reasons to kill them on sight. Next thing you know they will be stealing sugar from your house and vandalizing your kitchen because you have too much and nobody needs to stockpile 2 whole months of sugar! How dare you! These idiots always have some busy body nosy bullshit to protest or some trivial cause to 'fight the man'

Just mind your own business, believe what you want, and leave everybody else alone. Why is that concept so hard to grasp?

 

[jonks]

Originally posted by: exdeath

Originally posted by: sirjonk

Originally posted by: exdeath

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Moonbeam makes a mental note to himself:

"Self, if you ever decide to take up a life of thievery in Texas, make sure, ,before you lift anything, to be certain first the owners are dead."

How about simply: don't take other people's shit.

Or is that too much for you to grasp?

Too subtle Moonbeam

English to English translation: what was implied there was there WILL be criminals who WILL steal. Always have been, always will be. With the "if I catch you I'll kill you" mentality, those burglars have every reason to kill you instead of trying to be stealthy about taking your stuff.

I find it ironic that between the "socialist states" which are supposed to be dens of perversity and sin, and the rest of the country which is supposed to be full of the righteous god fearing folk who constantly spout how they try to cultivate a culture of life, its the "good people" who want to blow away a couple of kids for vandalism.

Are all of the right leaning P&N of this mindset?

As you just alluded to, someone willing to steal your property isn't far off from being willing to kill you to get it. So you are saying it's safe to assume that if they are on my property stealing from me that my life is also in danger; but I already assume that. If someone is violating my private property rights, who is to say where they will draw the line? Is my life and body theirs to take as freely as they would my car, stereo, TV, watch, home?

Who has less value for human life, the person minding his own business who would kill only because he was put into a situation he didn't want in order to protect his property and livelihood, or the individual who would dismiss the life of any person they see fit because they simply want some insignificant trinket that doesn't belong to them so they can get their next crack rock?

And these weren't kids, these were 30's yuppies, environmentalist zealots and leftist communists, all the more reasons to kill them on sight. Next thing you know they will be stealing sugar from your house and vandalizing your kitchen because you have too much and nobody needs to stockpile 2 whole months of sugar! How dare you! These idiots always have some busy body nosy bullshit to protest or some trivial cause to 'fight the man'

Just mind your own business, believe what you want, and leave everybody else alone. Why is that concept so hard to grasp?

I rest my case.

 

[Mursilis]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider
As far as the "rich" go, I suspect that people in that neck of the woods who drive the Prius have similar incomes.

Someone decided that their outrage trumped the law, and were justified because of it.

It does not.

Because I don't like something another legally owns and uses does not give me the right to destroy it.

While true the point is that Americans are getting more outraged with the rich everyday:

7-20-2007 Police: Burglary crew hits L.A. mansions

LOS ANGELES - A team of burglars has lifted more than $7 million in jewelry, rare books and cash from dozens of homes in the city's wealthiest neighborhoods, slipping in and out without tripping elaborate alarms or leaving so much as a fingerprint behind, authorities say.

Over the past year, they have hit the homes of celebrities, sports stars and corporate tycoons, plus non-celebrity mansions in Brentwood, Beverly Hills and the "Platinum Triangle" of Bel-Air, Encino and Holmby Hills, Lt. Ray Lombardo said Thursday.

"These guys are a two-man hillside crime wave. They are quick hit artists," said Councilman Jack Weiss. "They are clearly knowledgeable and sophisticated."

==========================================

What does this prove? Where the robbers "outraged by the rich"? Or just smart enough to know there's no money in robbing poor people?

Which ganster was it who said, when asked why he robbed banks, said "Because that's where the money is!"?

 

[exdeath]

Originally posted by: sirjonk

Originally posted by: exdeath

Originally posted by: sirjonk

Originally posted by: exdeath

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Moonbeam makes a mental note to himself:

"Self, if you ever decide to take up a life of thievery in Texas, make sure, ,before you lift anything, to be certain first the owners are dead."

How about simply: don't take other people's shit.

Or is that too much for you to grasp?

Too subtle Moonbeam

English to English translation: what was implied there was there WILL be criminals who WILL steal. Always have been, always will be. With the "if I catch you I'll kill you" mentality, those burglars have every reason to kill you instead of trying to be stealthy about taking your stuff.

I find it ironic that between the "socialist states" which are supposed to be dens of perversity and sin, and the rest of the country which is supposed to be full of the righteous god fearing folk who constantly spout how they try to cultivate a culture of life, its the "good people" who want to blow away a couple of kids for vandalism.

Are all of the right leaning P&N of this mindset?

As you just alluded to, someone willing to steal your property isn't far off from being willing to kill you to get it. So you are saying it's safe to assume that if they are on my property stealing from me that my life is also in danger; but I already assume that. If someone is violating my private property rights, who is to say where they will draw the line? Is my life and body theirs to take as freely as they would my car, stereo, TV, watch, home?

Who has less value for human life, the person minding his own business who would kill only because he was put into a situation he didn't want in order to protect his property and livelihood, or the individual who would dismiss the life of any person they see fit because they simply want some insignificant trinket that doesn't belong to them so they can get their next crack rock?

And these weren't kids, these were 30's yuppies, environmentalist zealots and leftist communists, all the more reasons to kill them on sight. Next thing you know they will be stealing sugar from your house and vandalizing your kitchen because you have too much and nobody needs to stockpile 2 whole months of sugar! How dare you! These idiots always have some busy body nosy bullshit to protest or some trivial cause to 'fight the man'

Just mind your own business, believe what you want, and leave everybody else alone. Why is that concept so hard to grasp?

I rest my case.

Good for you, just keep your 'case' to yourself. If you see someone robbing me and I kill them, mind your own business. And when I see someone robbing you for the third time in a row I'll mind my own business and let you give them whatever they want without stopping you.

Ever notice that the anti-defense-of-property guys always want to intervene and stop the pro-defense-of-property people from defending their property, but the pros have no problem with letting the antis giving up their belongings and life if thats what they choose to do? When is the last time you saw someone advocating the defense of property doing everything he could to force an anti to kill an intruder? That alone should speak volumes, the antis are just in it for the power trip of controlling others and enforcing their moral standards on everyone else.

I cross into your property, and follow your rules. Cross into my property, you follow my rules. You have no right or ability to change the rules on my property.

As for the laws, as stated numerous times, I will be in full compliance with the law while being satisfied that I have adequately and justly defended myself and property at the cost of only the criminal. It's all about using tiered reasonable and lawful force and letting the criminal choose whether or not he is going to unlawfully escalate thus giving you the right to lawfully match his escalation of force. If he stands down and shows willingness to leave without my property, good for him, I could care less what he does outside my property. If he escalates and gives me the legal right and moral cause to end his life, I will do so just as well.

 

[jonks]

Let us take an imaginary journey to a place called...reality. Here's why your bloodthirsty shoot to kill mentality is stupid.

Jack and Jane are married for many years. They have 2 children and Jack is a terrific father, contributes to his church, and has lots of friends. Jane is having an affair with Robert. Jack finds out what car Robert drives, and in an insanely jealous rage decides he's going to smash it up. But Jack didn't know Robert's neighbor has the same car. Jack accidentally smashes up the neighbor's car. The neighbor comes out of his house, shoots and kills Jack.

In your view, Jack got was coming to him because he was a criminal, not an angry, jealous husband who sought petty revenge. Jack forfeited his right to life because he chose to damage someone's property. Jack was not a deranged rapist, burglar or killer. Just a guy who got carried away with his emotions and made a bad choice. This is the sort of thing that happens in a triggerhappy land. Mostly good people making the occasional bad choice. In your world, his choice deserves the death penalty.

You are so eager for someone to damage your material possession so that you can experience killing someone that it borders on the psychopathic. Seek help.

EDIT. I forgot to include how this plays out in NY. Here, the neighbor, John, calls the cops. They show up and arrest Jack. John finds out the story behind why Jack did what he did. He feels pressing charges is unneccessary, so long as Jack pays for the damage he did to John's car. They go out for a beer and discuss how women suck. They realize they are both latent homosexuals. They move to Massachusetts, get married, and raise poodles.

Jane moves to Texas, gets drunk at a party, stumbles home and accidentally enters her neighbors yard. Her neighbor sees someone on his property so he shoots and kills her. Bitch.