| |
| |
| |
|
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73
Comments:
<0> kobushi: actually ive read cases where signs were not enough
<1> FeeSimple show them
<0> brandished firearms (even sitting beside the person) resulted in ***ault charges
<2> FeeSimple, they are allowed to express themselves openly, in church.
<3> President of Afghanistan on CNN.
<3> Rofl.
<4> as far as I know in Texas you don't have to open the door, you merely have to tell the person to leave your property, if they do not leave, you have the right to shoot them THROUGH the door
<0> you are just going to have to believe me...i dont feel like jumping on westlaw...
<5> yeah, if they are on your property and you bust em in the *** with rock salt or buckshot its your word against theirs. if they are there in no state sanctioned official capacity conducting lawful activities on a dedicated utility easement it is no defense
<1> FeeSimple *shrug* I don't :P ... though ANYTHING can resault on ***ault CHARGEs... I doubt any of those stuck
<5> at least in Texas anyway
<0> When studying the tort of tresp***, the limitations of force (or implied force) are dealt with substantially
<5> in michigan however you have a first duty to run away. even on your own property if you are ***aulted
<0> no kobushi: these werent just charges, these were convictions with more than minimal penalty
<0> otherwise you wouldnt study them
<3> THANK YOU!
<3> The president of Afghanistan is at least smart.
<1> anyway, as I said earlier it depends on the state
<3> He basically said "Yeah, I'm pissed about the cartoons, but seriously how is this violence upholding the image of Mohummad? God taught us to forgive."
<6> Border states are different.
<6> Buffer law.
<1> TX is very pro-property defense, as is TN... not sure what the law is on the subject here in NC
<0> KoBushi: no...again, these are tort liabilities and there is rarely legislation in relation to them. These are common law principles that are not state specific
<5> man, no wonder the mexicans are out breeding us. their television shows are almost porn.
<6> TX has a border with another country also.
<1> FeeSimple right, tort doesn't change state-to-state ... ROFL
<1> tard
<0> fema: yes lol
<0> KoBushi: No, the only time tort law changes is when there are regulating statutes.
<1> wrong :)
<0> Common law is not state specific.
<5> they got chick fully dressed having a fight in the mud on a soap oprea
<1> well, perhaps you a right in the subject of regulating statutes... but all states have different regulating statutes
<0> KoBushi: these are elementary principles of law...it is a bit difficult to disagree with them. :)
<1> which, is contradictory to your previous claim that they had no differing legislation :P
<5> Texas law is very pro-family, pro-property and pro-individual.
<0> kobushi: you would be surprised how many do not have any regulating statutes in terms of ***ault
<1> so which is it FeeSimple the vary by state or the don't?
<1> The fact is, that it varies by state
<1> period
<0> again: only when statute intervenes.
<1> but it DOES intervene :)
<1> therefor , varies by state
<0> sigh...you don't get it.
<0> :)
<1> projection is not good debate
<5> i can walk around all day with hogleg strapped to me on my own property and as long as i'm not waving it around acting nutty nobody gives a ****. try that in new york or illinois.
<4> FEMA yeh in NY, you have to open the door and shoot the dude and then quickly drag them into the house and MAYBE just MAYBE you MIGHT get justifiable homocide
<4> becareful not to let any blood hit the ground after you shoot his *** hehe
<0> Common law principles are that way precisely because they arent civil law matters governed by statute. Common law torts would not be labelled as such if there was common statute
<0> Which means in 90% of the situations there is no statute...there are rare exceptions.
<1> FeeSimple on the subjects of property rights, tresp***ing, and ***ault, there are MANY statutes which vary by state
<5> yeah, i've read stories where guys broak in and attacked a woman with knives and some old fart dewd kung-fud the **** out of them and He got into trouble.
<5> in NY
<4> yeap
<0> Property rights obviously...i never said otherwise. Tresp*** ditto, but ***ault? nope.
<4> as a cop told me once "You have the right to call the cops"
<4> hahahahah thats about it
<1> yes, ***ault too
<0> ***ault and battery are bastions of common law, even in the u.s. :)
<1> since, other statutes help defin what justifies force
<0> fine, show me ***ault statutes plz that deal with tort liability.
<1> justified force != ***ault or battery
<6> I think some people can go too far sometimes, once they are no longer a threat I don't think you can keep defending your self?
<2> Here in Texas, I was victim to an attempted ***ault, so I shot both of the guys with my derringer (has a .410 round), the cops didn't bat an eye.
<0> reasonable force is a defence to battery...nothing more.
<6> A shop owner shot and killed a man who had robbed him 5 times.
<6> Just this week.
<1> FeeSimple I belive you said it "you are just going to have to believe me...i dont feel like jumping on westlaw..."
<0> ahhh...attempted ***ault, that is criminal law. Major distinction between the tort of ***ault and criminal ***ault and battery
<2> The cops came the next day because they wanted to know what kind of gun I had that would get both with one shot, heh.
<6> Really, it was a hand gun that shot .410 shotgun shells?
<5> but tressp***ing is ***ault on ones civil liberties... the right of peacable enjoyment of property and services to which one is legally entitled is protected under the law. the problem is that most people dont know that they have the right to peacable enjoyment or that they have to explain this right to a nutcase before they cap him for tressp***ing.
<1> Though... in my case I don't feel like jumping on lexisnexis
<2> s1ntient, yes, a derringer
<0> well KoBushi: i guess it is one of those situations as a student of law where i trust my background, and youve said enough that makes me think this is not your area of expertise.
<0> i doubt you have a lexisnexis account
<6> Was it slugs at point blank?
<0> most people pay :)
<1> FeeSimple *shrug* you have contradicted yourself enough that makes me think you will do poorly when you actually get to law school :)
<2> s1ntient, I had bird shot in it, lots of tiny pellots
<5> fortunately i have cameras in all my windows and don't mind giving a person due and timely warning
<6> Oh ok.
<6> Killed them?
<2> s1ntient, now I have 000 buck in it
<0> KoBushi: i have an article next year with a "big law" firm.
<0> I did alright thx
<1> FeeSimple statutes which effect property rights, and tresp***ing, also directly effect what is ***ault in the context of the prior discussions
<5> TheTailor, i have one of those 5 shot magnum derringers with birdshot too
<2> s1ntient, naaa, just got their attention and woke them to the fact that they needed a doctor to piuck lead out of their ***es.
<6> 00 and 000 is the man killer stuff, I was reading that it can go through walls too much to be a safe home defense load.
<7> awww Frandpa died...
<5> "way less than lethal"
<7> Grandpa
<7> from the Meunsters
<1> FeeSimple as they change when one is allowed to use force on thier own property, and in what context, and when on is not.
<2> 000 has 3 balls
<7> Al Lewis
<2> It will surely kill you.
<8> bah, full magnum dear-slug loads
<0> simply wrong...they dont effect it in such a manner. Property defence in that respect would require a bonafide tresp*** conviction.
<2> haha
<1> on->one
<7> buck shot?
<6> Like 7.5 - 8.5 is supposed to be for home defense because it is a wide spread and won't go through walls with too much force.
<1> FeeSimple it does effect it.
<8> dear-slug asin.. dearly departed..
<2> 000, not 00
<7> double aught is .320 in diameter
<2> Buck is 00 isn't it?
<2> Lup|ne
<2> You know this stuff
<1> FeeSimple just loko at differences in convictions between California, and Texas
<1> look*
<0> yes but ***ault is not force...it is imminent force...and statutes do not protect your ability to brandish a gun (in my experience with property statute)
<6> Still whatever you think you need to defend yourself.
<7> tripple is smaller, its a bit bigger then #6 birdshot
<7> 00 is buck
<1> yes, you DO have the right to threaten force to protect your property in some states
<7> I use 00 as a projectile in certain recreated 32cal (8mm) obsolete rounds
<1> and that comes directly from property right statute
<0> Kobushi: heh, and any statute that deals with that is a reasonable force provision
<5> .22 cal bird shot would only be lethal if you were within point blank range or pressed the damn gun against the person's skin.
<7> in NM you have the right to protect property. also in OR except in Portland of course
<0> and reasonable force is a common law principle.
<0> they define it
<5> its a weapon of terror, not a weapon of war.
<1> FeeSimple good then you agree that it varies by state,a nd that there are reasonable force provisions of property law stature :)
<7> FEMA or if you build some crafter special purpose ammo...
<7> which I can do
<1> and what you said previously was wrong :P
<7> crafted
<8> Fee: in florida, if I see you engaged in a "forcible felony", legally, reasonable force=lethal force :-)
<0> and sorry...ive never seen a statute that allows you to pull a gun on someone and use a property statute to defend themselves adequately
<7> FeeSimple come to Albuquerque
<4> hehehe
<0> yes lup major difference between walking onto someone's property to prosleytize
<0> about Joseph Smith :)
<7> I know 2 men in sort of that circumstance
<8> Fee: oh, that is a whole other section
<0> no KoBushi: the reasonable force doctrine is common law across the board, unless explicitly defined
<0> never seen reasonable force defined through statute in terms of ***ault
<1> FeeSimple you keep saying that it's 100% identical in all states... but then say "unless..."
<1> FeeSimple you contridict yourself every time you type
<5> Feesimple, its implied in the right to be secure from unlawful search and seizure and to be secure in ones personal effects and property. its about peacable enjoyment of yer own stuff under the law.
<7> in TN when you pull up, you honk. it is an old custom that avoids nastyu lethal welcomes
<0> i never said that: i said it is a common law distinction unless governed by statute...and you said that the common law differs state by state
<0> and i said that is nonsense
<1> FeeSimple it... changes... depending... on... the ... state... for ... various... reasons.
<1> was that slow enough for you?
Return to
#politics
or
Go to some related
logs:
#windowsxp
seeyaft
#debian
#sex
#politics
tweening inputtext
#windows
ECSPQ.PK enron penny
Diffuse the bomb by cutting the correct wire. There are two wires. They are Ivo
#beginner
|
|