Desparate?
And besides her not having her toys any more, she's going to be high-maintainance what with legal bills and such.
You'd probably be better off picking from Craig's List.
stay safe.
-
We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
-
If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
-
Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.
The legal system out of control? This woman's real mistake was talking to police ...
Desparate?
And besides her not having her toys any more, she's going to be high-maintainance what with legal bills and such.
You'd probably be better off picking from Craig's List.
stay safe.
OC for ME
Regular Member
Good point.....but, she may be more 'attractive' later....maybe.
Miss Black Rifle Disease
Regular Member
That is a perceived right vs. one qualified by law. The Constitution doesn't even give you any rightful protections as what you are suggesting. And no where in the available press releases over this story does it state emphatically that she was detonating her "hobbyist" explosive devices on her property, folks are just assuming that. Americans love to assume.I think it's gaining status as the most popular sport rivaling Football.
When I was growing up some teenagers were playing around with some "explosives" adjacent to a greehouse we had back in our woods. Though they detonated their toys on their property shrapnel and burning debris caused significant damage to our green house and it's contents even though "ground zero" was over 100 yards away. The blast started a fire that also burned down another neighbors barn resulting in two classic cars being destroyed. There is good reason that blowing things up is NOT anyone's right. And should be done for useful legitimate purpose vs. some stupid immature stunt. I can appreciate the fun in watching something go boom as the next person. That act in itself I don't consider criminal. But that being said some laws, as much as it pains me to admit, are for the common good and should be obeyed..
Jack House
Regular Member
Some Hunters were hunting on land they leased and even though they were over a hundred yards away, their bullets managed to strike two children playing basket ball. I think one died? According to your logic, we should outlaw hunting all together and only allow target shooting at designated ranges.
The constitution isn't all inclusive, according to the constitution.
The constitution isn't all inclusive, according to the constitution.
Miss Black Rifle Disease
Regular Member
This argument, and no offense to the poster, is sophistry. You're attempting to categorize a tragic accident in the same light as a pointless and dangerous stunt to validate an invalid comparison. One was a useless exercise in reckless behavior, another was an unfortunate and coincidental result of a legitimate and lawful activity. The two are hardly the same. Accidents happen as a result of responsible behavior every day and they are unavoidable. But the intentional exercise of ignorant stupidity regardless of locale should be dealt with by law and common sense.
Last edited:
DocWalker
Regular Member
I would love to see this land of lolly-pops and fairytails you speak of.
Accidents from drunk drivers and people texting happen all the time. It is preventable but law and common sense have nothing to do with it since the law does nothing about it. Here in Idaho we have mutiple people with multiple DUIs. One of which just got his 14th DUI. It is nice to know that the law and common sense is protecting us.
If someone is on private property they should be able to blow things up as long as it stays on their property. It is far different than the drivers that drive on the public roads, they are not even comparable in that aspect.
Actually its a slippery slope fallacy if anything, but to show that the argument is fallacious you have to show a distinction between restricting one activity that does not apply to the other.
I see no such distinction. When actions cause harm, that harm is what should create a situation of accountability. Explosives, just like firearms have the potential for harm if not used under proper conditions. They share that factor, and it is that factor which was the root of the slippery slope argument. The argument is valid.
Outlawing anything just becuase it has the potential to cause harm under specific conditions which can be easily prevented IS a slippery slope. The justification needs to deal in clear distinctions, no such distinction has been presented.
Last edited:
Jack House
Regular Member
Ladies and gentlemen, I introduce you to Eye95's wife.
Incorrect, I'm comparing reckless and criminal negligent behavior with reckless and criminally negligent behavior. Mind your backstop
Great! We agree that kids destroying other people's property due to their reckless abandon is just that, reckless behavior. Useless, however, is in the eye of the beholder. I think hair dyes are useless, but some may disagree.
Whether them hunting was lawful or not bares no relevance on this argument. Since the entire argument is about whether or not the government has a right to meddle in the affairs of private citizens when they harm no third party.
I suppose you could call this an accident, but it wasn't an innocent one.
Nice try though.
Miss Black Rifle Disease
Regular Member
Ladies and gentlemen, I introduce you to Eye95's wife.
Incorrect, I'm comparing reckless and criminal negligent behavior with reckless and criminally negligent behavior. Mind your backstop
Great! We agree that kids destroying other people's property due to their reckless abandon is just that, reckless behavior. Useless, however, is in the eye of the beholder. I think hair dyes are useless, but some may disagree.
Whether them hunting was lawful or not bares no relevance on this argument. Since the entire argument is about whether or not the government has a right to meddle in the affairs of private citizens when they harm no third party.
I suppose you could call this an accident, but it wasn't an innocent one.
Nice try though.
Your eye roll should be towards your own nonsense. Talk about a flip flop..you go back and forth a lot on your points and there isn't any consistency to your argument. Sounds like your just want to be right vs. any other aspect of the discussion, yet another message board bully, what a surprise..And I saw what you did there..Told me nice try on a statement with no link to any facts other than what you gleamed then posted a link AFTER the fact providing details that completely change the accident to one of criminal negligence.
What a garbage argument. So according to you ...If you live on say a half acre lot in a subdivision you should be able to blow up whatever you want in your backyard? It's not that cut and dry is it? The devil is always in the details. You don't have the right to do whatever you want on private property period. You can argue pointless semantics all day but you can't back that up with anything qualified by law now can you?
I have no idea who eye95 is but I gather that was indeed an insult. Can't you just discuss without the BS?
Last edited:
Miss Black Rifle Disease
Regular Member
Are you kidding me? What the heck does DUI or texting while driving have to do with something that was presented as an accident from a lawful activity? No, people should not be able to blow things up on their private property and in fact, no where is such a thing legal and that is how it should be. So just because people do stupid stuff regardless of the law, then this justifies that law should be stricken? You make no sense in your post.
You guys are just arguing with me for no other reason than to come up with some irrelevant garbage to make me out to be wrong even when its not an issue of right or wrong its an issue of opinion..
Last edited:
DocWalker
Regular Member
So your saying the goverment can tell you what and what you can't do on your private property even though it doesn't hurt or affect anyone and 'isn't illegal"?
Well they got the drones flying over head so you must agree with those also so the goverment can make sure nobody is having any fun. Lets out law your free speech next, where does the goverment stop if you can't do legal things on your own land?
Miss Black Rifle Disease
Regular Member
Oh c'mon..you are taking this waaaaaaaaaaaaayyy too far. Again, you're being argumentative just for sake of argument. Why? I didn't make the law...and I will gladly concede that if a person can demonstrate that the detonation of an explosive device on their property can factually have no effect on others lives or property then sure, whatever..Be an idiot if you want to be an idiot. But due to the stupidity of people in general we just can't have folks making this decision with zero accountability. The problem is that too many people are not smart enough to ensure safe conditions are met. Therefore, the law, unfortunately must make that decision for them. That being said I would have no objection to such a practice being allowed with a permit after their blast zone was inspected to ensure no collateral damage off property could be suffered or at very minimum guidelines established such as distance from structures or property lines etc...
Last edited:
DocWalker
Regular Member
I guess you have never celebrated the 4th of July, They sell exposive devices all year round in a store about 15 miles from me. Some states have some laws for fire reasons but not because they say you can't blow something up on your private property. You should try fishing with a M-80 (equal to 1/4th stick of dinomite) all you need is a net.
Jack House
Regular Member
It's not an insult. The two of you have some similar viewpoints.
Please point this out.
There is no need for that.
I referenced an example of criminal neglect during an otherwise lawful activity. I did not specify it was criminal negligence. I thought it was inferred by the context of the discussion, I was wrong. For that, you have my apologies.
However, I never gave any indication that was an innocent accident either. You jumped to conclusions, automatically assuming that it was based on the fact it was a legal activity. This went contrary to the context, for this I do not accept any blame. I tend to be a bit vague at times, in which case you should always just ask me to clarify. I will, happily.
The argument isn't that I have that right by law, but that I should have that right. An example, I can not lawfully resist an unlawful arrest, with the sole exception of an arrest, lawful or otherwise, where the officer uses greater force than necessary to effect the arrest. But should I not have that right? Should I be forced to subject myself to a kidnapping because the perpetrator is wearing a badge? The supreme court thinks apparently, but Texas law states otherwise.
Sec. 38.03. RESISTING ARREST, SEARCH, OR TRANSPORTATION.
(a) A person commits an offense if he intentionally prevents or obstructs a person he knows is a peace officer or a person acting in a peace officer's presence and at his direction from effecting an arrest, search, or transportation of the actor or another by using force against the peace officer or another.
(b) It is no defense to prosecution under this section that the arrest or search was unlawful.
(c) Except as provided in Subsection (d), an offense under this section is a Class A misdemeanor.
(d) An offense under this section is a felony of the third degree if the actor uses a deadly weapon to resist the arrest or search.
PC §9.31. SELF-DEFENSE.
(b) The use of force against another is not justified:
[...]
(2) to resist an arrest or search that the actor knows is being made by a peace officer, or by a person acting in a peace officer's presence and at his direction, even though the arrest or search is unlawful, unless the resistance is justified under Subsection (c);
[...]
(c) The use of force to resist an arrest or search is justified:
(1) if, before the actor offers any resistance, the peace officer (or person acting at his direction) uses or attempts to use greater force than necessary to make the arrest or search; and
(2) when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to protect himself against the peace officer's (or other person's) use or attempted use of greater force than necessary.
You're absolutely right, the devil is in the details. In Texas, it is legal to shoot on your land, provided it meets the criteria set out by the legislature, this criteria is immaterial to the discussion at hand, so I wont risk misquoting the law. However, assuming your land meets the criteria, then you may shoot on your land so long as your bullets do not cross property lines. I see no reason why this same standard can not apply to explosive. If I detonate an explosive on my property and no one is injured, no fires started that require emergency services, no property damage to my neighbors. Then where is the harm?
Sec. 62.0121. DISCHARGE OF FIREARM ACROSS PROPERTY LINE.
(a) In this section, "firearm" has the meaning assigned by Section 62.014(a).
(b) A person commits an offense if:
(1) the person, while hunting or engaging in recreational shooting, knowingly discharges a firearm; and
(2) the projectile from the firearm travels across a property line.
(c) It is a defense to prosecution under this section that the person:
(1) owns the property on both sides of each property line crossed by the projectile; or
(2) has a written agreement with any person who owns property on either side of each property line crossed by the projectile that allows the person to discharge a firearm on, over, or across the property or property line.
(d) The written agreement required under Subsection (c)(2) must:
(1) contain the name of the person allowed to hunt or engage in recreational shooting in a manner described by Subsection (b);
(2) identify the property on either side of the property line crossed by the projectile; and
(3) be signed by any person who owns the property on either side of the line crossed by the projectile.
(e) An offense under this section is a Class C Parks and Wildlife Code misdemeanor.
(f) If conduct constituting an offense under this section constitutes an offense under a section of the Penal Code, the person may be prosecuted under either section or both sections.
Miss Black Rifle Disease
Regular Member
Oh c'mon dude. Don't try and camouflage this as some friendly comparison. It was a zing and you know it. At least have the gumption to stand by your insults when you make them. I'm just not that stupid.
Really, you and I agree on more then we disagree on. My point of you flip flopping was I see a lot of ambiguity in your points, they could be interpreted in either direction. You seem to adjust them as necessary just to stay at odds with me in this discussion. But I'm not interested in diverging into some nonsense sidebar that is nothing more then the forum King of the Hill game. You can't just allow un-regulated use of explosive devices dude. You can't! If for any other reason then to stop stupid people from blowing things up without really understanding the results and potential collateral damage. Those kids that destroyed our greenhouse and burned down our neighbor's barn along with nearly 4 acres of forest never thought that would happen. They didn't do it intently. But because they were not careful, mature or responsible enough to understand all factors in explosive detonation they caused about $300,000 in damage. So yes, this should be illegal. Because even though their parents were wealthy and everyone got compensated without even going to court, I'm sure my mother who spent years on that greenhouse would have rather it never been destroyed in the first place. And I'm sure our neighbor who spent two years restoring two corvettes would have rather had his cars instead of their cash value. It's not always about you. It's about protecting the public interest at times. And that often means we must be subject to laws even when we specifically would not be so reckless.
Laws aren't really meant for the responsible, the mature, the intelligent and the rational sane non-criminal minded person. They are meant for stupid people that lack the insight and objectivity to police themselves. You can't distinguish between those two demographics in the law as that would be discriminatory. Those of us who are responsible enough to never cause harm to others must unfortunately suffer the consequences of the fool at large. That is the price of a civilized governed society.
Last edited:
Jack House
Regular Member
You seem rather paranoid. Honestly, the comment about Eye95 was not an insult. Actually, I think a quite a number of people liked Eye95.
You're reading me all wrong. For what purpose would I want to stay at odds with you? It's illogical.
No one is proposing completely unregulated use of explosives. What we're saying is that the government needs to stay out of your business so long as you do not harm anyone or anything else.
It IS illegal.
Arson.
Vandalism.
Reckless endangerment.
This argument sounds familiar, where have I heard it before?
Miss Black Rifle Disease
Regular Member
This argument sounds familiar, where have I heard it before?
A: I have zero respect for message board posters that respond like that. Sentence for sentence quotes only send a message "I'm obsessed with proving you wrong and uninterested in your position on any level. Therefore even if you cite facts or valid points I will ignore these and intentionally misunderstand everything you say"
B: FU dude..I ain't no damn anti-gun rights hippy jerk off and I am emphatically insulted at that BS! I posted over your head and all you can do is resort to off kilter comparisons because you didn't grasp any of what I was saying. Welcome to my ignore list.
twoskinsonemanns
Regular Member
These kids should be held accountable for the damages.
Idiot people show not be allowed to make stupid, restrictive laws because of it.
Jack House
Regular Member
Line item is best! Provides context, structure and allows responses to remain short and simple.
I haven't misunderstood anything you said, I have responded to your points with facts and cites. You have responded to my points by attacking the argument. You haven't put forth a valid argument since your original post in this thread, everything has been an attack on the arguments, rather than a rebuttal of the points.
I didn't say you were, only that you were using the same argument. Everything is an insult to you, isn't it? You're far too emotional, perhaps you need a breather? Not everything is an insult.
My comparison to Eye95 has come full circle. He too liked to ignore people that did not agree with him. :lol:
sudden valley gunner
Regular Member
Rights don't come from the Law. Perceived right may very well be a right.
Last edited: