100% FREE ONLINE DATING
sponsored links
Previous
| Topic: 7-Year-old Boy Dies in Trespass Shooting | |
|---|---|
|
|
|
IF I read correctly (and I'm usually right...kidding) then deadly force is only as a last reort or when there is nothing else to do. been wrong before though
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
BANG!!!!
He was just taking a leak? Damn officer, I thought he was stealing my Azalea bushes. 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
fanta....deadly force IMO doesn't even apply in this case. even if they were on his property...the laws of deadly force doesn't seem to apply IMO. BUT...and i stress BUT....the family wasn't on private property anyway
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
  
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
adj4u
on
Mon 05/11/09 02:48 PM
|
|
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 """reasonably believes the deadly force is immediately necessary:""" lets have some sense here some are acting as bad as those that pulled the trigger when it comes to understanding the law in question |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
maybe we should make a law about damn tarheels
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
fanta....deadly force IMO doesn't even apply in this case. even if they were on his property...the laws of deadly force doesn't seem to apply IMO. BUT...and i stress BUT....the family wasn't on private property anyway You can say that until the cows come home but there are those who are simply argumentative. The body of the argument is irrelevant and they will segue into anything that gets their jollies. 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
fanta....deadly force IMO doesn't even apply in this case. even if they were on his property...the laws of deadly force doesn't seem to apply IMO. BUT...and i stress BUT....the family wasn't on private property anyway You can say that until the cows come home but there are those who are simply argumentative. The body of the argument is irrelevant and they will segue into anything that gets their jollies. 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 I want jollies too...i never get jollies...stupid tarheels
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
maybe we should make a law about damn tarheels We dont shoot people for coming on our land. We dont shoot people unless our life is in danger. We use deadly force only to the degree necessary. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
maybe we should make a law about damn tarheels We dont shoot people for coming on our land. We dont shoot people unless our life is in danger. We use deadly force only to the degree necessary. the way I read the laws...we can't either. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
maybe we should make a law about damn tarheels We dont shoot people for coming on our land. We dont shoot people unless our life is in danger. We use deadly force only to the degree necessary. so you don't know many moonshiners do ya oh yea a lot changed to pot but yes there are those that will shoot you for trespassing in north carolina as well |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
maybe we should make a law about damn tarheels We dont shoot people for coming on our land. We dont shoot people unless our life is in danger. We use deadly force only to the degree necessary. http://www.clrsearch.com/RSS/Demographics/NC/Henderson/Crime_Statistics  Apparently there are lots of people in danger in your neck of the woods.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
maybe we should make a law about damn tarheels We dont shoot people for coming on our land. We dont shoot people unless our life is in danger. We use deadly force only to the degree necessary. so you don't know many moonshiners do ya oh yea a lot changed to pot but yes there are those that will shoot you for trespassing in north carolina as well http://www.clrsearch.com/RSS/Demographics/NC/Henderson/Crime_Statistics |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
yellowrose10
on
Mon 05/11/09 02:58 PM
|
|
ok...think about the gang violence....that is all over. people that want to shoot will do so regardless of law. but they can face the consequences of their actions
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rose colored glasses?
 I find it funny when screams "you're more backwoods than me!" 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Evidently you either didnt read the article or you just fail to acknowledge.
The couple thought the family was on their property. They thought they were within their legal right. They thought this because, like you said when making the point several times in the past, Texas says they can! Either it is or it aint Rose. Which is it? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
pfft....i know i'm a redneck
and darn tootin proud of it but no state is immune to violence or stupidity |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
In defense of Hendersonville, it is VERY beautiful. I lived near there for six years and aside from the ungodly high humidity it was great.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
quiet_2008
on
Mon 05/11/09 03:05 PM
|
|
You can say that until the cows come home but there are those who are simply argumentative. The body of the argument is irrelevant and they will segue into anything that gets their jollies. AHAAAAAA!! THAT is the truest thing I've heard on here arguing just for the sake of arguing |
|
|
|
|
