How do you convince someone that thinks its legal to shoot someone who trespasses


PDA






sonier
June 16, 2010, 11:29 PM
I have a good friend but, his father, well his father claims he has a legal right to shoot and kill anyone who trespasses on his land, not in his house not breaking entry just walking through his land. Is this legal? im pretty sure its illegal as heck, but hey i may be wrong
This is in colorado, my issue is im 19 and he is in his 40s, so how do you get past the sterotype of kids dont know nothing. I already got chewed out from him for shooting medium powered handloads that are published in all my loadbooks that i worked up too and did not get any overpressure signs.

If you enjoyed reading about "How do you convince someone that thinks its legal to shoot someone who trespasses" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
Rail Driver
June 16, 2010, 11:31 PM
Don't stop him from shooting a trespasser. (<--- joke) Easiest way to solve a problem with someone when you're 100% certain you're correct... let him prove himself wrong. This will have the side effect of stopping him from criticizing your handloads.

In all reality though, the best thing you can do is bring up the topic in the presence of an LEO in your area, or find and print out the relevant statutes so that he can see for himself.

sonier
June 16, 2010, 11:41 PM
Yea lots of people get mad when what they consider a kid tells them differently, i had a issue with a sheriffe deputy who got offended and took things REAL PERSONAL when i told her what the law stated, yes i called a lawyer and brand inspector and knew for sure i was right, to say the least it was a month of hell and getting threatned citations every other day. Its over now, had to complain and talk with the actual sheriffe.

Larry Ashcraft
June 16, 2010, 11:42 PM
I have a friend who has the same problem. He's in his late 50s and he thinks he can shoot anybody trespassing on his land. This type is especially frustrating and dangerous.

Ask him why he thinks he can impose the death penalty on someone who may be mistakenly trespassing. Ask him if he thinks the courts should be able to impose the same penalty for trespassing.

The ignorance out there just boggles the mind...

sonier
June 16, 2010, 11:43 PM
Indeed it does, ill prolly just ease into the conversation maybe start with stating if he believes petty minor thieves deserve the death penalty and work my way into simple trespassing, then just slowly work into the conversation and hoping he dosnt get irrate, this guys has a pretty wicked temper lol

The_Pretender
June 16, 2010, 11:49 PM
Just get him one of those signs that read:

"Trespassers will be shot. Survivors will be shot again."



But seriously- I'd get some form of literature to show him the law. It's guys like that that give the rest of us a bad name. Can you see the headlines? "UPS MAN SHOT WHILE DELIVERING PACKAGE"

Larry Ashcraft
June 16, 2010, 11:53 PM
OT, Sonier, how's the trout fishing up Hermit Lake Road this year? I haven't been up that way for years. I miss it.

sonier
June 16, 2010, 11:53 PM
Maybe the NRA should make a common law flyer of top most laws that many dont know, such as its illegal to shoot someone trespassing on your land not causing any damage or life threatning ways. Heck you cant legally shoot someone with rubber buckshot on your lawn either.

sonier
June 16, 2010, 11:58 PM
I Dont have a working horse trailer atm, so its a little hard to get around, Im lazy I dont walk lol and those trails have been pretty rough lately. mainly I just fish grape creek or a private pond near me.

SaxonPig
June 17, 2010, 12:34 AM
Depends on state law. I believe in Texas a trespasser is considered a threat to life and limb and may be shot.

Indeed, trespassers should be considered a serious threat. How often are people attacked and even killed by trespassers and others committing "non-violent" crimes when they inadvertently encounter these criminals? I have seen videos of store security officers being stabbed, shot, and run down with cars while trying to detain misdemeanor level shoplifters.

Remember a couple years ago in Wisconsin or Minnesota when a man caught trespassing on hunting land gunned down several people who challenged his right to be there?

I think anyone who would knowingly break the law and violate someone's property should be considered very dangerous. It takes very little to push a minor criminal into committing a major act of violence. If someone enters my property ignoring the "Keep Out" signs I assume he is up to no good.

Does this mean I advocate shooting anyone who crosses my fence? No, of course not. But on the other hand, I would not assume such a person would not murder me if things went wrong.

Some folks take the sovereignty of their property seriously.

sonier
June 17, 2010, 01:05 AM
now in texas what is there deffination of trespassing? cause theres trespassing in a home then theres walking on land, i dont htink anyone has a right to shoot anyone on there property unless they are posing a threat like waving a gun around threatning but far as walking through they are not considered a threat and to want to shoot them would be consider bloodlust at the least.

Cosmoline
June 17, 2010, 01:20 AM
The key to deadly force is the concept that force must match force. So if the trespasser posses an imminent and unlawful threat, you must defend yourself with deadly force. Or die. In some circumstances, you may be permitted under code to presume that certain intruders into an occupied dwelling are posing that level of threat. But in no event do the self defense codes permit the use of deadly force as punishment for an infraction, or even for a serious crime. They have nothing at all to do with punishment. Whether trespassers, thieves, lawyers, ombudsmen or whoever "deserve" to get shot is not part of the equation in any state.

I believe in Texas a trespasser is considered a threat to life and limb and may be shot.

It doesn't green light shooting down random trespassers. The code is considerably more restrictive:

Sec. 9.32. DEADLY FORCE IN DEFENSE OF PERSON. (a) A person is justified in using deadly force against another:

(1) if the actor would be justified in using force against the other under Section 9.31; and

(2) when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the deadly force is immediately necessary:

(A) to protect the actor against the other's use or attempted use of unlawful deadly force; or

(B) to prevent the other's imminent commission of aggravated kidnapping, murder, sexual assault, aggravated sexual assault, robbery, or aggravated robbery.

(b) The actor's belief under Subsection (a)(2) that the deadly force was immediately necessary as described by that subdivision is presumed to be reasonable if the actor:

(1) knew or had reason to believe that the person against whom the deadly force was used:

(A) unlawfully and with force entered, or was attempting to enter unlawfully and with force, the actor's occupied habitation, vehicle, or place of business or employment;

(B) unlawfully and with force removed, or was attempting to remove unlawfully and with force, the actor from the actor's habitation, vehicle, or place of business or employment; or

(C) was committing or attempting to commit an offense described by Subsection (a)(2)(B);

(2) did not provoke the person against whom the force was used; and

(3) was not otherwise engaged in criminal activity, other than a Class C misdemeanor that is a violation of a law or ordinance regulating traffic at the time the force was used.

(c) A person who has a right to be present at the location where the deadly force is used, who has not provoked the person against whom the deadly force is used, and who is not engaged in criminal activity at the time the deadly force is used is not required to retreat before using deadly force as described by this section.

(d) For purposes of Subsection (a)(2), in determining whether an actor described by Subsection (c) reasonably believed that the use of deadly force was necessary, a finder of fact may not consider whether the actor failed to retreat.

As an aside--you can apparently use deadly force to stop a suicide in Texas! I wonder if they thought that one through.

(b) A person is justified in using both force and deadly force against another when and to the degree he reasonably believes the force or deadly force is immediately necessary to preserve the other's life in an emergency.

:uhoh:

Dazen
June 17, 2010, 01:25 AM
Well I know If some one is trespassing and stealing something from my car or property at night it is legal to shoot them and I support this too. As far as day time I dont think it is.

Cosmoline
June 17, 2010, 01:38 AM
Nevermind, here it is. Note subsection (3)'s restrictions. That makes the provision, in essence, a presumption that a criminal at night under certain circumstances, engaged in sufficiently felonious behavior, would constitute an imminent deadly threat if confronted.

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.

torpedoman
June 17, 2010, 01:46 AM
it used to be that a man could protect his property thats why some of the older guys have problems now that is is not legal.

RoostRider
June 17, 2010, 01:53 AM
hoping he dosnt get irrate, this guys has a pretty wicked temper lol

I would just let this one lie.... part of becoming a 'mature' adult is in knowing that some people never will, and that it is pointless to argue with them...

You have done what you can... you told him... DON'T TELL HIM THIS but, hopefully you will never have to testify against him because he acted on his irrational belief.

Cosmoline
June 17, 2010, 01:53 AM
it used to be that a man could protect his property thats why some of the older guys have problems now that is is not leg

The guy was forty, not a hundred and forty. I just turned forty, and I can deny any personal knowledge of the Lincoln County wars or open range feuds.

RoostRider
June 17, 2010, 01:56 AM
The guy was forty, not a hundred and forty.

LOL.... LOL..... LOL

(now that was a good one)

Sav .250
June 17, 2010, 08:25 AM
I can see it now. Somebody pulls into his drive way, just to turn around and this guy runs out and shoots the driver. There are some strange people on
this planet!

Rexster
June 17, 2010, 08:56 AM
Well, now that someone has brought up Texas, NO, trespassers may NOT be shot in Texas for mere trespassing!

Texas does give citizens broad powers to use deadly force to protect property, but mere trespassing is NOT cause to use deadly force.

moxie
June 17, 2010, 09:10 AM
Thank you Rexter (from Erath Co.), you beat me to the punch!

Carl N. Brown
June 17, 2010, 09:39 AM
Around here, you can use lethal force under circumstances where a "reasonable person" (district attorney in his office, judge on his bench, jury in the grand or petit jury box) would feel that, if they were in your shoes, they would feel they were in fear of death or greivous bodily harm.

You haul off and shoot at some one simply trespassing, odds are the "reasonable person" would feel that the one in fear of death or greivous bodily harm would be the simple trespasser. (If the trespasser is attempting to perpetrate a felony, that's a different case altogether.)

As usually, this internet legal advice is worth every penny I charge for it, which is zilch as I am not a lawyer, games of Charades not counting. On the other hand, I not only have been accused of passing the bar, I have been accused of going in and having a drink on occasion.

AirForceShooter
June 17, 2010, 09:42 AM
All depends on State law.
If the state in question has the " Castle Doctrine" in effect it may be perfectly legal to shoot a trespasser.

AFS

danprkr
June 17, 2010, 09:46 AM
Just don't bother. A closed mind is the hardest thing in the world to open. Just agree to disagree, and do as you wish. In my experience in dealing with older people (fewer and fewer seem to be around as time goes on for some reason ;) ) having the ability to ignore their stupidity SOMETIMES causes them to think, "Well that young punk doesn't seem to give a darn what I think. I'll just prove him wrong." Then when they can't they may change their mind.

This type of closed minded individual though will rarely be man enough to admit it. Just enjoy the victory if you get or see it, and move on with your life. Meanwhile he'll probably have an elevated level of respect for you either way. Either because you were right, or because you have the guts to do what you think is right regardless.

If you don't there's no reason to waste your time on him. Time is the only resource we have that's a finite commodity, and we have no idea how much we have. So use it on useful pursuits. Not :banghead: on the wall of willful stupidity. It's just not worth it.

Having said that before you go this route I'd look up the statutes and know for sure I was correct. I can't believe you're wrong, but not being in Colorado I don't know. But, if you're wrong admitting it will raise your stature in his eyes also.

Carl N. Brown
June 17, 2010, 09:54 AM
quoted earlier: it used to be that a man could protect his property

If someone is walking away with my land, rather than walking on it, I might have some justification in threatening to shoot if he does not drop it and go away.

Biblically an intruder in the home after dark is presumed to have murderous intent and may be killed; but a thief running away especially in daylight may not be killed (in Leviticus I believe) and I recall something about forgiving mere trespasses.

I recall decades ago an incident where I did arm myself in response to a trespasser; it turned out apparently he was just taking a shortcut across the property (appeared a little drunk too) and nothing came of it.

Added: Near my uncle's land, hikers and ATvers along the TVA trails don't always know whose land they are on. A lot of landowners don't care one way or the other about casual passersby as long as there is no vandalism. BUT, if the property is fenced and clearly posted, I stay off when hiking or ATVing. To hunt, I always ask permission of the owner.

makarovnik
June 17, 2010, 01:06 PM
Silly people. Even in Texas after night fall that would be a problem unless they are damaging something (or somebody). Florida, I wouldn't try it, just about everywhere else, don't even think about it. Besides it's just wrong to be so willing to kill for something like that if you don't have to.

Quoheleth
June 17, 2010, 01:10 PM
You say, "Have your wife call me when you get to prison so I know where to visit you when you go in for life. I'll make sure your kids have a dad around while you're gone and bring you pictures as they grow up without you."

Turn away, slowly, with a long and sad look over your shoulder.

Remember: you can't fix stuipd and if you keep telling them and they refuse to listen, they're stupid.

Q

Gouranga
June 17, 2010, 01:23 PM
If the state in question has the " Castle Doctrine" in effect it may be perfectly legal to shoot a trespasse

In NC we do have "Castle Doctrine" but not all are equal. We CANNOT shoot trespassers. We can use lethal force if someone is breaking in, once they are in though, the rules change and we are much more strict on when we can use it. Someone wandering around my yard, I cannot use lethal force. Someone stealing my car, cannot use lethal force.

So the first thing I would do is pull down the statutes for your particular state on what threshold is required before lethal force becomes a legal option in your state.

Deanimator
June 17, 2010, 01:51 PM
I have a friend who has the same problem. He's in his late 50s and he thinks he can shoot anybody trespassing on his land. This type is especially frustrating and dangerous.
It's just as likely that he just SAYS he thinks that because he can't admit error.

I know an older guy who simply can't admit that any of his political pronouncements are erroneous, be they about gun control or the power of the Iranian electorate. It's not that he doesn't know. He doesn't WANT to know.

My mother used to be the same way. She used to insist that the Army couldn't boot me for DUI. I offered to get her in contact with several of my EMs, including my former armorer and a cook or two whom we'd discharged for PRECISELY that reason. She wasn't interested.

buck460XVR
June 17, 2010, 02:36 PM
I have a good friend but, his father, well his father claims he has a legal right to shoot and kill anyone who trespasses on his land, not in his house not breaking entry just walking through his land. Is this legal? im pretty sure its illegal as heck, but hey i may be wrong
This is in colorado, my issue is im 19 and he is in his 40s, so how do you get past the sterotype of kids dont know nothing. I already got chewed out from him for shooting medium powered handloads that are published in all my loadbooks that i worked up too and did not get any overpressure signs.

I'm bettin' your friends dad also thinks it's still okay to beat your wife and to drive drunk. Same kind of guy that thinks huntin' regs are for everybody else.

Hatterasguy
June 17, 2010, 04:26 PM
I wouldn't tresspass on his land than, he might go to jail but you will still be shot and probably dead.

CoRoMo
June 17, 2010, 04:38 PM
If the state in question has the " Castle Doctrine" in effect it may be perfectly legal to shoot a trespasser.
Colorado has a statute that bears a silly name; the Make My Day Law. It is similar to a lot of Castle Doctrine statute found in other states. Trespassing in and of itself is not a threat to property, threat of injury or mortal harm. Justified shootings often include the act of trespassing, but it alone is not what justifies the shoot. And IIRC, Colorado's MMDL does not allow the use of deadly force to protect property.

Harley Rider 55
June 17, 2010, 05:50 PM
I'm sure in Texas, shooting trespassers was common many years ago. Many folks had no phone service to call the local LEO (if there was local LEO).

searcher451
June 17, 2010, 05:55 PM
The one thing that I would do, if I were you, sonier, would be to make sure that you never, ever tresspass, under any circumstances whatsoever, on the old man's property, period.

Friendly, Don't Fire!
June 17, 2010, 06:04 PM
This thread reminds me of this:

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3068/2987921385_97820bc22d.jpg

M2 Carbine
June 18, 2010, 12:23 AM
How do you convince someone that thinks its legal to shoot someone who trespasses
Just show the person the law.

PENAL CODE
PC §30.05.
Criminal Trespass
(a) A person commits an offense if he enters or remains on property,
including an aircraft, of another without effective consent or he enters
or remains in a building of another without effective consent and he:
(1) had notice that the entry was forbidden; or
(2) received notice to depart but failed to do so.
(b) For purposes of this section:
(1) "Entry" means the intrusion of the entire body.
(2) "Notice" means:
(A) oral or written communication by the owner or someone with
apparent authority to act for the owner;
(B) fencing or other enclosure obviously designed to exclude
intruders or to contain livestock;
(C) a sign or signs posted on the property or at the entrance to
the building, reasonably likely to come to the attention of intruders,
indicating that entry is forbidden;

§ 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.


Even in Texas we need a little more reason to shoot a trespasser than them simply walking across your land.

But this seems to get the idea across rather well.:D
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v135/Bell406_206B/Warning-1.jpg

Ignition Override
June 18, 2010, 01:20 AM
Show him the federal penalty for even wounding an alligator in Florida, on the gator's "land".

Maybe the dumb jackass will realize that people might be considered an endangered, when/if they are Not threatening anybody.
It's exactly that type of person that creates views of so many Americans as hostile, uncivilized cavemen by so much of the world.

XxWINxX94
June 18, 2010, 01:32 AM
In certain instances, some folks would say, "I'd rather be judged by 12, than carried by 6."

This of course depending on how serious the threat is.

smallbore
June 18, 2010, 08:35 AM
Doesn't Colorado have some sort of 'castle doctrine' law on their books? I suggest getting a copy and giving it to him

Tilos
June 18, 2010, 08:52 AM
People that talk tuff like that are usually the same type who are out of breath after shouting 10 words.

All of us will become members of that minority if we live long enough.
Once you loose your physical presents, some feel vulnerable, and begin to TALK tuff/crazy for the shock value.

The odds a person like that would actually shoot someone is very, very, low.

Remember the "God made man, Colt made him equal" thing?
This is it, and has nothing to do with law or knowing what the law is.
Just my opinion.

danprkr
June 18, 2010, 08:52 AM
He doesn't WANT to know.

Great point - there is none so blind as he who will not see.

Officers'Wife
June 18, 2010, 09:08 AM
Hi Sonier,

Problem is that old guys fully believe they have seen all and know all. The only way they can learn is the hard way. :(

Sport45
June 18, 2010, 09:48 AM
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v135/Bell406_206B/Warning-1.jpg

I wouldn't want to be an either side of that revolver when it went off. Not much holding the barrel in front of the cylinder! ;)

Is there any real need to convince the guy in the OP that he can't shoot a trespasser? I'm thinking if he hasn't shot anyone by now, he's just blowing smoke anyway. (Us old guys tend to do that from time to time.)

Kleanbore
June 18, 2010, 10:57 AM
While it may be that he has been badly misled by the rhetoric of those who opposed the so called "make my day" law in Colorado, he may just be among the many who for some reason seem to think that the possession of a firearm somehow carries with it authority to enforce laws as one sees fit.

If I recall correctly, a couple of years ago a watchman was charged with murder for shooting a trespasser at night in the Boulder area. No, one may not do that!

I suggest that you give him copies of the relevant statutes.

18-1-704. Use of physical force in defense of a person.

(1) Except as provided in subsections (2) and (3) of this section, a person is justified in using physical force upon another person in order to defend himself or a third person from what he reasonably believes to be the use or imminent use of unlawful physical force by that other person, and he may use a degree of force which he reasonably believes to be necessary for that purpose.

(2) Deadly physical force may be used only if a person reasonably believes a lesser degree of force is inadequate and:

(a) The actor has reasonable ground to believe, and does believe, that he or another person is in imminent danger of being killed or of receiving great bodily injury; or

(b) The other person is using or reasonably appears about to use physical force against an occupant of a dwelling or business establishment while committing or attempting to commit burglary as defined in sections 18-4-202 to 18-4-204; or

(c) The other person is committing or reasonably appears about to commit kidnapping as defined in section 18-3-301 or 18-3-302, robbery as defined in section 18-4-301 or 18-4-302, sexual assault as set forth in section 18-3-402, or in section 18-3-403 as it existed prior to July 1, 2000, or assault as defined in sections 18-3-202 and 18-3-203.

18-1-704.5. Use of deadly physical force against an intruder.

(1) The general assembly hereby recognizes that the citizens of Colorado have a right to expect absolute safety within their own homes.

(2) Notwithstanding the provisions of section 18-1-704, any occupant of a dwelling is justified in using any degree of physical force, including deadly physical force, against another person when that other person has made an unlawful entry into the dwelling, and when the occupant has a reasonable belief that such other person has committed a crime in the dwelling in addition to the uninvited entry, or is committing or intends to commit a crime against a person or property in addition to the uninvited entry, and when the occupant reasonably believes that such other person might use any physical force, no matter how slight, against any occupant.

18-1-705. Use of physical force in defense of premises.

A person in possession or control of any building, realty, or other premises, or a person who is licensed or privileged to be thereon, is justified in using reasonable and appropriate physical force upon another person when and to the extent that it is reasonably necessary to prevent or terminate what he reasonably believes to be the commission or attempted commission of an unlawful trespass by the other person in or upon the building, realty, or premises. However, he may use deadly force only in defense of himself or another as described in section 18-1-704, or when he reasonably believes it necessary to prevent what he reasonably believes to be an attempt by the trespasser to commit first degree arson.

18-1-706. Use of physical force in defense of property.

A person is justified in using reasonable and appropriate physical force upon another person when and to the extent that he reasonably believes it necessary to prevent what he reasonably believes to be an attempt by the other person to commit theft, criminal mischief, or criminal tampering involving property, but he may use deadly physical force under these circumstances only in defense of himself or another as described in section 18-1-704.

To sum up, it would seem that deadly force is permissible (1) if immediately necessary for self defense or the defense or another; (2) if the actor is inside his dwelling and someone has unlawfully entered for an unlawful purpose; or (3) if it is immediately necessary to prevent first degree arson. Lay opinion.

http://publicola.mu.nu/archives/2007/02/03/colorado_use_of_force_laws.html

So--what happens if none of the above conditions are met, and one shoots anyway? That depends a lot on whether the victim survives. Felony either way.

A and O
June 18, 2010, 02:32 PM
In California the law states.

If a man (hereafter referred to as the worker guest) is caught Trespassing (hereafter called visiting) you must render additional assistance to him including loading your goods on your truck. If your trucks gas tank is less than half full you are guilty of hindering a laborer at work (2yrs penalty). You must also ask if he has children and render to the worker guest $500.00 per child up to $50,000.00 but no less than $1,000.00 per visit. The land owner (hereafter called the offender) shall also be liable for all applicable taxes due related to the above labor arrangement.

I could go on and on , but you get the point.

BCCL
June 18, 2010, 03:03 PM
You can't, stupidity cannot be talked out of someone.

oldbear
June 18, 2010, 04:32 PM
You can’t convince anyone of anything they are not willing to believe. The only thing you can do is suggest that this person contact local law enforcement or an attorney for an legal definition regarding the use of deadly force.

You can also hope that this stubborn and in MHO foolish person does not hurt someone, unless he has both legal and moral grounds to do so.

mljdeckard
June 18, 2010, 04:37 PM
You probably can't.

Yeah, if you happen to have a cop in the same conversation with him, give it a try. (I have no way of knowing what the odds on this are.) Is it possible to show him the code, either online or from the book? What I suspect is, he STILL won't believe it. I have known guys like this.

19&41
June 18, 2010, 07:13 PM
Hello, new member here. I've seen many questions arise over the laws in a given state. Here is a site I have found to be a good starting point on accessing the info in each state.

http://public.findlaw.com/library/state-laws.html

KodiakBeer
June 18, 2010, 07:49 PM
What's the rule about hanging vs shooting?

Carl N. Brown
June 18, 2010, 10:40 PM
The point on rhetoric of those who opposed the law is a good one. The actual rules of the "Stand Your Ground" or "Castle" laws gets twisted by the anti-gun crowd to "Shoot the Avon Lady" or "Shoot First" laws. People who get their info from newspapers or editorializing film screenwriters get the wrong idea.

Harley Rider 55
June 19, 2010, 08:25 AM
That's why my GSD's patrol at night. I have no worries of someone coming on the property, unless thay are looking forward to plastic surgery.

bluetopper
June 19, 2010, 10:32 AM
You guys ought to try following a large pack of barking hounds running a coyote as fast as they can run in the middle of the night. Sometimes they stay close, other times they make five mile circles. Then go gather them up after daybreak.

Officers'Wife
June 19, 2010, 11:15 AM
The actual rules of the "Stand Your Ground" or "Castle" laws gets twisted by the anti-gun crowd to "Shoot the Avon Lady" or "Shoot First" laws. People who get their info from newspapers or editorializing film screenwriters get the wrong idea.

Interesting, then essentially the anti's create the very things they claim to want to prevent in a self fulfilling fantasy. This might be a good point to bring up to the editors that print such false information.

sonier
June 19, 2010, 04:23 PM
so this is interesting, So some may believe from hollywood and the "anti" propaganda, has caused a lot of the ignorance, and self assuming laws people tend to believe? so even if these people believe they are extremely inteligent and think that they cant be convinced by the anitgun crowd, yet they actual have been and dont know it and refuse to believe it ..............lol wow Its deffinately something to think about lol

tpaw
June 19, 2010, 10:29 PM
Depends on state law. I believe in Texas a trespasser is considered a threat to life and limb and may be shot.

That's what I thought also, but only at night?

wishin
June 20, 2010, 04:09 PM
Hi Sonier,

Problem is that old guys fully believe they have seen all and know all. The only way they can learn is the hard way. :(
Not all; just some of us.:D

BillyBothHands
June 20, 2010, 04:24 PM
In my experience those that spout off on this subject wouldn't have the nerve to pull a trigger even if their life actually depended on it. Not all but most are just hot air lol. My 2 cents and a bagel will leave you with a bagel lol.

Redneck with a 40
June 20, 2010, 04:26 PM
Let him shoot a trespasser, then he'll figure out how illegal it is real quick, doing a long stint in the grey bar hotel, lol.

Rexster
June 20, 2010, 05:45 PM
Quoting another THR member's post:

"That's what I thought also, but only at night?"

The color of the air does not matter! It is NOT legal to shoot someone for merely trespassing in Texas, day or night. There are indeed some other offenses for which deadly force may be used at night, but trespassing is NOT one of those listed offenses. Moreover, the use of deadly force must pass the REASONABLENESS test, something that is usually decided by a grand jury, though sometimes it is a trail jury that decides. There is no such thing as the right to automatically be justified in using deadly force for any property crime.

Really folks, read the whole statute, not just the opening paragraph or two.

Sam1911
June 20, 2010, 06:14 PM
There is no such thing as the right to automatically be justified in using deadly force for any property crime.
Seems like a good place to let this one die.

Sic terminus.

If you enjoyed reading about "How do you convince someone that thinks its legal to shoot someone who trespasses" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!