100% FREE ONLINE DATING
sponsored links
Previous
| Topic: 7-Year-old Boy Dies in Trespass Shooting | |
|---|---|
|
|
|
there are three hundred million people in America. Just by the percentages, every day you're gonna have ten or fifteen idiots doing something vicious , cruel, and stupid to each other and to other innocent people. You can't cherry pick those isolated incidents and extrapolate them to represent the whole of a population.
we could be here all day pulling incidents like this out of our hats and trying to use them to argue for or against anything |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
there are three hundred million people in America. Just by the percentages, every day you're gonna have ten or fifteen idiots doing something vicious , cruel, and stupid to each other and to other innocent people. You can't cherry pick those isolated incidents and extrapolate them to represent the whole of a population. we could be here all day pulling incidents like this out of our hats and trying to use them to argue for or against anything 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
dragoness...not sure who you are talking to but I don't accept what the shooters did by any means....and yes I feel for the family. I can't tell. You have offered no help to try to stop it from happening again. People on here have dismissed this seven year old child as OH WELL, TOO BAD, LAWS ARE LAWS, POOR KID, ETC.... Well of course it wasn't their kid, so I guess they can sign it off. It is just sick to me. Yah know. It used to be that kids were taught to respect other people, and their property, whether they understood it or not. Fences were respected, one didn't go goof around on other people's property, or go play with their toys, dogs, or swimming pools, period. They didn't go retrieve their toys out of someone elses yards if it went skipping off. They either went around to the front door and knocked, or waited till the owners got home. I got it knocked into my head that if I wanted to horseback ride I had to have permission from property owners to ride beyond what falls under emminent domain by the state. And I fully remember the ass-chewing and whipping I got for flattening down 20ft of corn to play in, and had to pay back to the owner. Now it's the homeowners risk of lawsuit for having a swimming pool (attactive nuisance) and they're responsible, even if they've fenced and padlocked the pool and yet someone falls in a drowns. Another person can't defend (legitimately!) their property, self or livestock, because of fear of lawsuits and jail time. When are people going to wise up and demand and expect that parents take care of their kids, and people actually respect each other, and take care not to tread on each others property, zones, etc? Yah know - that word - Personal RESPONSIBILITY!!! Yes, the shooting was tragic, especially since the shooters were in the wrong. But there's obviously a concern down there of trespassing going on. Unless the city, state and federal gov.t is going to hand back the money that people have paid to own the land/house, paid on taxes on the land/house, then they should have the right to protect themselves and that land/house, however it may be. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
They were on public property so the shooter's had no right at all to shoot at them. This little boy died for no reason whatsoever. Even the DA said that they were on public property, so the people that shot, and killed, the little boy had no right to do so. They should be charged with murder since the boy was NOT trespassing on their property. He was on public property that was open for anyone to be on.
As was already pointed out somewhere in this post....laws can't fix stupid. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
They were on public property so the shooter's had no right at all to shoot at them. This little boy died for no reason whatsoever. Even the DA said that they were on public property, so the people that shot, and killed, the little boy had no right to do so. They should be charged with murder since the boy was NOT trespassing on their property. He was on public property that was open for anyone to be on. As was already pointed out somewhere in this post....laws can't fix stupid. I believe I said something like that. but even if they were trespassing (which they weren't) shooting still wouldn't be legal. the apparent misconception is that Texas laws allow people to just open fire if someone steps one foot on someone's property and that isn't the case |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
...the apparent misconception is that Texas laws allow people to just open fire if someone steps one foot on someone's property and that isn't the case That is how it should be. Easy to take care of: don't step one foot on someone private property. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
...the apparent misconception is that Texas laws allow people to just open fire if someone steps one foot on someone's property and that isn't the case That is how it should be. Easy to take care of: don't step one foot on someone private property. but just because a salesman (for example) comes to your door...Texas law doesn't give license to shoot them that is this misconception I referred to |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
...the apparent misconception is that Texas laws allow people to just open fire if someone steps one foot on someone's property and that isn't the case That is how it should be. Easy to take care of: don't step one foot on someone private property. but just because a salesman (for example) comes to your door...Texas law doesn't give license to shoot them that is this misconception I referred to really? awww crap. now what do I do with all these dead salesmen? |
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
TJN
on
Tue 05/12/09 11:00 AM
|
|
...the apparent misconception is that Texas laws allow people to just open fire if someone steps one foot on someone's property and that isn't the case That is how it should be. Easy to take care of: don't step one foot on someone private property. but just because a salesman (for example) comes to your door...Texas law doesn't give license to shoot them that is this misconception I referred to really? awww crap. now what do I do with all these dead salesmen? Bury them in the neighbors yard |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
quiet
 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
...the apparent misconception is that Texas laws allow people to just open fire if someone steps one foot on someone's property and that isn't the case That is how it should be. Easy to take care of: don't step one foot on someone private property. but just because a salesman (for example) comes to your door...Texas law doesn't give license to shoot them that is this misconception I referred to You're tempting me, right? I just love an intelligent woman. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
lol nogames...I would never tempt you. I postd the laws about it and me and others didn't read it that way
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Yeah, right...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
SUBCHAPTER D. PROTECTION OF PROPERTY Sec. 9.41. PROTECTION OF ONE'S OWN PROPERTY. (a) A person in lawful possession of land or tangible, movable property is justified in using force against another when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to prevent or terminate the other's trespass on the land or unlawful interference with the property. (b) A person unlawfully dispossessed of land or tangible, movable property by another is justified in using force against the other when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to reenter the land or recover the property if the actor uses the force immediately or in fresh pursuit after the dispossession and: (1) the actor reasonably believes the other had no claim of right when he dispossessed the actor; or (2) the other accomplished the dispossession by using force, threat, or fraud against the actor. Acts 1973, 63rd Leg., p. 883, ch. 399, Sec. 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1974. Amended by Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 900, Sec. 1.01, eff. Sept. 1, 1994. 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. those are the laws in Texas. the way I read it is it can be used more of a last resort. you can't just open fire on a door to door salesman """""(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.""""" i guess that is too hard for some to understand |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Now we are going off on another thing again. This was a flagrant violation of human rights. A CHILD was shot because .......... well for nothing at all. You may want to accept this and not feel for the victims but I will not. I am working on what should be done about it. I will be writing to some people about it. So, a seven year old was shot on public property. He is dead. And look at all this...how can anyone justify this act? Makes me want to throw up. Comparing this disgusting cowardly act to a situation where someone was actually in fear of their lives or endangered in any way is obscene. Here is what is wrong with the gun debate. On one side are extremist who want to take everyone's guns away and on the other are extremist who think anything anyone does with any gun is okay. what about those that had invested all of their worldly treasures with a corrupt investor that stole everything they had and then committed suicide is that any less evil shall we just lock everyone in an apt building """for their own good""" there is evil everywhere and there are those that will commit evil acts regardless yes this was a tragedy but what is to be done they will go on trail and the justice system will handle it that is the way the system works at this time bundy sure violated a lot of peoples rights as well all that can be de is for the system to go through the procedures to handle the injustices as they come why should the law biding citizen every be punished for the injustices performed by the criminal there seems to be a trend that goes sorta like this oh they use those to commit crimes so lets make those illegal thus the law biding citizen's rights are stolen because of a small percentage of evil doers and honestly that is worse than anything the evil doer has personally done besides when has prohibition of anything ever worked all that does is create a black market and the evil increases ten fold just a thought but hey what do i know |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"No Soliciting, and this means church groups too" worked for me.
And if they got pushy, one turns the goose into the front yard. That nips it in the bud. Literally, if they didn't get back in their car fast enough. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 I just tell those people my grandmother's address. she will argue and not give up...they usually say "cross this family off the list"
maybe that's where I get it from lol |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The amount of time I wrote this sentence, at least 3 kids just died in USA by being a victim of a violent crime.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"DeFoor said the levee belonged to the subdivision and was not private property."
This is why they are up on charges. And anyone who wants to play like this is an argument for gun control is forgetting that their car is just as lethal, so they should give that up if they don't want to be branded a hypocrite. |
|
|
|
|
