bourneshooter
Regular Member
imported post
563 wrote:
563 wrote:
Congrats. Spending spree before the dems get in is a good thing.
-
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.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Man shoots pitbull
- Thread starter 563
- Start date
Sheldon
Regular Member
imported post
PT111 wrote:
In Mi our Castle doctrine has a clause thatneither the criminals or their family can bring charges or sue. If they manage to find a lawyer stupid enough to take the case they are responsible of all costs involved to both parties, as is the dog owner inmy daughterscase.
So in short yes they can take you to court, thatis if they are willing to loose and pay all court costs involved including your lawyer fees.
PT111 wrote:
Sad to say it doesn't always work that way just like the Castle Doctrine and motorcycle accidents. Deson'treally do any good to argue your case to St. Peter that you were in the right.In my daughters case the dog owner is fully liable for any and all damages done by their animal and no charges can be brought against her in court.
In Mi our Castle doctrine has a clause thatneither the criminals or their family can bring charges or sue. If they manage to find a lawyer stupid enough to take the case they are responsible of all costs involved to both parties, as is the dog owner inmy daughterscase.
So in short yes they can take you to court, thatis if they are willing to loose and pay all court costs involved including your lawyer fees.
563
Regular Member
imported post
bourneshooter wrote
Bingo! gotta do this before changing of the guard happens next year.
whats your take on creating a site for us Idaho locals creating a website/forum for other local topics of interest, since this place is geared solely towards OC. (not trying to steal Opencarry.org thunder.
bourneshooter wrote
Congrats. Spending spree before the dems get in is a good thing.
Bingo! gotta do this before changing of the guard happens next year.
whats your take on creating a site for us Idaho locals creating a website/forum for other local topics of interest, since this place is geared solely towards OC. (not trying to steal Opencarry.org thunder.
PT111
Regular Member
imported post
Sheldon wrote:
Sheldon wrote:
Just make sure you are completely in the right concerning these. When that stupid lawyer starts the grilling it will be up to you to prove your case no matter what the law says and you better hope the jury sees it the same way. It is no where near as cut and dried as everyone tries to make out like it is. The fellow that owned the cows in the case I told abolut thought he was in the right also.PT111 wrote:Sad to say it doesn't always work that way just like the Castle Doctrine and motorcycle accidents. Deson'treally do any good to argue your case to St. Peter that you were in the right.In my daughters case the dog owner is fully liable for any and all damages done by their animal and no charges can be brought against her in court.
In Mi our Castle doctrine has a clause thatneither the criminals or their family can bring charges or sue. If they manage to find a lawyer stupid enough to take the case they are responsible of all costs involved to both parties, as is the dog owner inmy daughterscase.
So in short yes they can take you to court, thatis if they are willing to loose and pay all court costs involved including your lawyer fees.
Saint
Regular Member
imported post
563 wrote:
563 wrote:
It is in the works. I need to talk to my roommate and see if he can potentially set something up for us. We also need to get an OC meet to happen soon so we can see about getting the Idaho Citizens Defense League up and runningbourneshooter wroteCongrats. Spending spree before the dems get in is a good thing.
Bingo! gotta do this before changing of the guard happens next year.
whats your take on creating a site for us Idaho locals creating a website/forum for other local topics of interest, since this place is geared solely towards OC. (not trying to steal Opencarry.org thunder.
Sheldon
Regular Member
imported post
PT111 wrote:
Oh is is already a done deal, police told them that under no uncertain terms that if they did not agree to full restitution they would be brought up on criminal charges. So it was a no brainier for them, pay up or go to jail.
So yes they could have contacted a layer and I in turn would have contacted the state police and they would have had to talk to two lawyers one for the suit and one to try and get out of jail time.
It's like I said Michigan takes their dog attacks very seriously with the dog owner being at fault, so if you want to let your dog run loose here you had better be ready to accept the liability.
PT111 wrote:
Sheldon wrote:Just make sure you are completely in the right concerning these. When that stupid lawyer starts the grilling it will be up to you to prove your case no matter what the law says and you better hope the jury sees it the same way. It is no where near as cut and dried as everyone tries to make out like it is. The fellow that owned the cows in the case I told abolut thought he was in the right also.PT111 wrote:Sad to say it doesn't always work that way just like the Castle Doctrine and motorcycle accidents. Deson'treally do any good to argue your case to St. Peter that you were in the right.In my daughters case the dog owner is fully liable for any and all damages done by their animal and no charges can be brought against her in court.
In Mi our Castle doctrine has a clause thatneither the criminals or their family can bring charges or sue. If they manage to find a lawyer stupid enough to take the case they are responsible of all costs involved to both parties, as is the dog owner inmy daughterscase.
So in short yes they can take you to court, thatis if they are willing to loose and pay all court costs involved including your lawyer fees.
Oh is is already a done deal, police told them that under no uncertain terms that if they did not agree to full restitution they would be brought up on criminal charges. So it was a no brainier for them, pay up or go to jail.
So yes they could have contacted a layer and I in turn would have contacted the state police and they would have had to talk to two lawyers one for the suit and one to try and get out of jail time.
It's like I said Michigan takes their dog attacks very seriously with the dog owner being at fault, so if you want to let your dog run loose here you had better be ready to accept the liability.