Awwww...they were just trying to eat when they got shot by a woman

davidmcbeth · May 24, 2014

http://www.americanthinker.com/2014..._tryin_to_eat_when_killed_during_breakin.html

Well, eat LEAD ! pew pew pew ... feed 'em gooood. Here, have an extra helping....pew pew pew

Now if the law was as it should be where one can shoot people on their land at will for the most part then these stories would not exist with people crying about shooting criminals.

F350 · May 24, 2014

I just love a feel good bedtime story!!!

cjohnson44546 · May 25, 2014

Its horrible they died... but it is their own fault.

I think the author is twisting this "trying to eat" thing a bit... its simply a phrase used like... "to make a living." So their friend was basically saying they were making all their money as burglars, not trying to find food because they were starving.

stealthyeliminator · May 25, 2014

davidmcbeth said:
http://www.americanthinker.com/2014..._tryin_to_eat_when_killed_during_breakin.html

Well, eat LEAD ! pew pew pew ... feed 'em gooood. Here, have an extra helping....pew pew pew

Now if the law was as it should be where one can shoot people on their land at will for the most part then these stories would not exist with people crying about shooting criminals.

Umm, no. You should not end someone's life just because they accidentally stumble across a property line. Even if your property is well marked with no trespassing signs, it's always possible that some of your signs were down for some reason and in such a case, a person may not have received legal notice. Obviously I'm speaking of larger sections of non-residential land where it would not necessarily be reasonable to expect every person in every circumstance to be aware if they've accidentally wondered over a property line. If you were to say anytime someone unlawfully enters your dwelling, then yeah I think I'd agree.

davidmcbeth · May 25, 2014

stealthyeliminator said:
Umm, no. You should not end someone's life just because they accidentally stumble across a property line. Even if your property is well marked with no trespassing signs, it's always possible that some of your signs were down for some reason and in such a case, a person may not have received legal notice. Obviously I'm speaking of larger sections of non-residential land where it would not necessarily be reasonable to expect every person in every circumstance to be aware if they've accidentally wondered over a property line. If you were to say anytime someone unlawfully enters your dwelling, then yeah I think I'd agree.

I say you should not even have to place any signage. And I don't think people accidentally stumble into someone's property...I think that would solve the issue of signs being blown down by the wind.

I guess I think that one should be able to travel about his property an be able to defend themselves without the government scratching their head and charging one with a crime.

bc.cruiser · May 25, 2014

davidmcbeth said:
http://www.americanthinker.com/2014..._tryin_to_eat_when_killed_during_breakin.html

Well, eat LEAD ! pew pew pew ... feed 'em gooood. Here, have an extra helping....pew pew pew

Now if the law was as it should be where one can shoot people on their land at will for the most part then these stories would not exist with people crying about shooting criminals.

But where would you "draw the line"? After all, just think of the practice opportunities when the little critters that live on either side of you use your yard as a shortcut. Then for disposal you would have to drag the carcasses to the street yourself since the municipal employees won't want to violate your formal order against trespass.

As for the article referenced: Good for the brother!

solus · May 25, 2014

cjohnson44546 said:
Its horrible they died... but it is their own fault.

I think the author is twisting this "trying to eat" thing a bit... its simply a phrase used like... "to make a living." So their friend was basically saying they were making all their money as burglars, not trying to find food because they were starving.

sorry as the author stated w/quotes from a noted clinical psychologist, (paraphrasing) "the bad guys are using this as a mental justification to themselves, family, friends, and so forth."

this also may be what phrase they told all their friends so the friends knew what activities the bad guys were going to be engaged in for the evening and to stay away from them.

btw, not the brightest in the gene pool, who the devil breaks into someone whom they knew was on limited income, three times?

ipse

solus · May 25, 2014

David, just a word of caution, in the Tarheel state, use of deadly force is not allowed in dealing with trespassers, unless the trespasser 'is imminently threatening you with death or great bodily harm."

also without citizen's arrest provisions, pointing a firearm at them is an arresting offence for the individual holding the firearm. (14.34)

ipse

sudden valley gunner · May 25, 2014

stealthyeliminator said:
Umm, no. You should not end someone's life just because they accidentally stumble across a property line. Even if your property is well marked with no trespassing signs, it's always possible that some of your signs were down for some reason and in such a case, a person may not have received legal notice. Obviously I'm speaking of larger sections of non-residential land where it would not necessarily be reasonable to expect every person in every circumstance to be aware if they've accidentally wondered over a property line. If you were to say anytime someone unlawfully enters your dwelling, then yeah I think I'd agree.

+1

I think the state has gone to far in charging people with a crime when they have defended their property. But trespass shouldn't = a death sentence.

davidmcbeth · May 25, 2014

sudden valley gunner said:
+1

I think the state has gone to far in charging people with a crime when they have defended their property. But trespass shouldn't = a death sentence.

The law should be clear and should be easily understood by all, especially in issues of life and death.

The line of the property line is clear, distinct, and understood by all. Although it may result in idiots who mean no harm being shot, so be it is my viewpoint.

Make the law clear and all will understand it .. that's all that justice requires.

Now we have laws that no one can understand when a specific set of circumstances present itself. Its retarded. Made to ensnare.

I put a high value on clarity. The law should as well.

And it is nothing new in law to have such a view that a person who is on another's land can be shot or killed by the land owner.

sudden valley gunner · May 25, 2014

I have a high value on human life. The punishment should equal the crime.

SFCRetired · May 25, 2014

When someone comes onto my property, whether deliberately or accidentally, depending on their purpose, I will either ask them to leave or, if they have a legitimate purpose (meter reader, cable repair), I will allow them to continue. But I will be watching them.

It is a whole different thing when someone forces their way into my home while I am there. My mindset automatically goes to, "They are here to do me or my wife harm." At that point, I am going to do whatever is necessary to stop the threat.

When this story hit another forum, there were one or two wringing their hands over the age of the deceased. Sorry, but youth does not mean decreased threat. Don't believe me? Ask any veteran of the late unpleasantness in Southeast Asia.

It's tragic, yes. But the tragedy is that someone didn't take notice of what these two young men were doing and take action to stop them before someone else had to stop them permanently.

My deepest sympathies are with the person in the home who had to make that decision. Their life has been forever changed. I just pray they can move past it and get on with their life.

sudden valley gunner · May 25, 2014

SFCRetired said:
When someone comes onto my property, whether deliberately or accidentally, depending on their purpose, I will either ask them to leave or, if they have a legitimate purpose (meter reader, cable repair), I will allow them to continue. But I will be watching them.

It is a whole different thing when someone forces their way into my home while I am there. My mindset automatically goes to, "They are here to do me or my wife harm." At that point, I am going to do whatever is necessary to stop the threat.

When this story hit another forum, there were one or two wringing their hands over the age of the deceased. Sorry, but youth does not mean decreased threat. Don't believe me? Ask any veteran of the late unpleasantness in Southeast Asia.

It's tragic, yes. But the tragedy is that someone didn't take notice of what these two young men were doing and take action to stop them before someone else had to stop them permanently.

My deepest sympathies are with the person in the home who had to make that decision. Their life has been forever changed. I just pray they can move past it and get on with their life.

Agreed. Forcing a way into a mans castle puts one on the right side of defense.

A trespass across someones field met with deadly force would be a tragedy.

stealthyeliminator · May 25, 2014

davidmcbeth said:
The line of the property line is clear, distinct, and understood by all.

This is not a true statement. It's probably one of the most unsound generalizations I've heard on this forum. And it's a pretty dangerous one at that. Even if your premise here were true, I'd still disagree with your opinion... But there's no need to get that far, because this premise is most certainly not true.

davidmcbeth · May 26, 2014

stealthyeliminator said:
This is not a true statement. It's probably one of the most unsound generalizations I've heard on this forum. And it's a pretty dangerous one at that. Even if your premise here were true, I'd still disagree with your opinion... But there's no need to get that far, because this premise is most certainly not true.

Its good enough. And easy to determine. Zingo, bingo ... a good rule.

MAC702 · May 26, 2014

davidmcbeth said:
...The line of the property line is clear, distinct, and understood by all. ...

Maybe in Connecticut.

Most lands out here are public and sometimes it is very hard to tell when you stumble onto one that is privately owned. It's open range, too, so not many fences.

Mere geographical location is not sufficient for your distinction.

Freedom1Man · May 26, 2014

davidmcbeth said:
The law should be clear and should be easily understood by all, especially in issues of life and death.

The line of the property line is clear, distinct, and understood by all. Although it may result in idiots who mean no harm being shot, so be it is my viewpoint.

Make the law clear and all will understand it .. that's all that justice requires.

Now we have laws that no one can understand when a specific set of circumstances present itself. Its retarded. Made to ensnare.

I put a high value on clarity. The law should as well.

And it is nothing new in law to have such a view that a person who is on another's land can be shot or killed by the land owner.

If I should have property that I own, that I have setup a personal shooting range on, and some idiot gets killed while crossing my shooting range, that death is on them not me. I'd like to build a 1000 yard range. I have a friend that has been invited to a 1000 yard pistol match so I know it can be done.

I do agree though that all laws should be crystal clear. There is a general rule of law that if two individuals of average education and intelligence cannot agree on what the law says then the law is void for vagueness.

If the laws were only meant to be understood by lawyers and judges then only lawyers and judges can be subject to the laws.

cjohnson44546 · May 26, 2014

JTHunter said:
Are you implying that it is acceptable to steal anything??
If so, you are dead wrong!!

Agreed!

I did not imply anything. I did nothing but explain what the friend of the burglar meant by her words. I never said anything about whether I agreed or disagreed, or it was right or wrong.

davidmcbeth · May 26, 2014

Freedom1Man said:
If I should have property that I own, that I have setup a personal shooting range on, and some idiot gets killed while crossing my shooting range, that death is on them not me. I'd like to build a 1000 yard range. I have a friend that has been invited to a 1000 yard pistol match so I know it can be done.

I do agree though that all laws should be crystal clear. There is a general rule of law that if two individuals of average education and intelligence cannot agree on what the law says then the law is void for vagueness.

If the laws were only meant to be understood by lawyers and judges then only lawyers and judges can be subject to the laws.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uvUNwf5lPJk&feature=player_embedded this you? 1000yd pistol shooting. Really just a pistol technically.

Many laws are attacked for their meaning where 2 intelligent people argue over its meaning; and judges toss folks in jail at the outcome too. Vagueness is a little bit more than that.

Feel free to have a 1000yd range on your land. And an idiot running in front in the line of fire? Sucks to be them.

Freedom1Man · May 27, 2014

davidmcbeth said:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uvUNwf5lPJk&feature=player_embedded this you? 1000yd pistol shooting. Really just a pistol technically.

Many laws are attacked for their meaning where 2 intelligent people argue over its meaning; and judges toss folks in jail at the outcome too. Vagueness is a little bit more than that.

Feel free to have a 1000yd range on your land. And an idiot running in front in the line of fire? Sucks to be them.

Looks like a Remington XP100

Awwww...they were just trying to eat when they got shot by a woman

Banned

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Banned

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Banned

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Banned

Campaign Veteran

Regular Member

Regular Member

Banned

Regular Member