.
Even if I knew how to delete my post, I wouldn’t. I disagree with your opinion, but will defend to your death your right to express it, and hope you will let me express my opinion.
You’re being rather selective, is there any reason, other than me putting you only at 3rd favorite, why you ask me to delete my post and not zugman, to whom you’re number one favorite? If you keep treating me this way I might have to drop you down to 4th or 5th.
Kyle, someone telling you is not the same as knowing the law, especially if this someone has no credentials. It’s almost as bad as believing something one reads on the internet.
Also I did not ask you where it is legal to shoot thieves, but where it is legal to use deadly force to defend property. I
.
Kyle is right. You can shoot trespassers but the penalty varies from state to state. Typically, defending property is not a just cause. However, once the defense of your property turns into a situation where your person is in mortal danger then fire away.
Odds are confronting some of these vandals might require a little lead flying. If you read about the graffiti culture you will see an illiterate, drugged and sometimes violet group. Not the harmless artist many are sympathetic to.
No, Kyle is not right. He did not say “you can shoot trespassers”, he said it’s legal to shoot trespassers.
The first time he expressed it as an opinion, subsequently stated it as fact, or at least I think “I believe” is expressing opinion, and “I know” is expressing fact.
Ordinarilly I’d consider “you can” to mean legal, but you follow up saying “penalty varies”. If there’s a penalty I don’t think the authorities feel that “you can”, in other words I think that means it’s not legal, and there can be serious repercussions. Even if one has the ability to shoot someone else I believe the law will not take too kindly if you didn’t have a good reason, and I believe protecting property, as I’ve mentioned before, falls below the threshold.
Yes, if you confront trespassers who then threaten you, you may be justified to use deadly force to protect yourself, but Kyle did not qualify his “legal to shoot” posts, he just said “trespassers” regardless of what they were threatening.
.
Norris,
I believe that varies by state. In Michigan one can defend oneself anywhere they have a legal right to be. YMMV.
.
Murphy, you seem to have missed where Norm said “defend oneself”. If the vandal’s intent is to deface property I don’t see how you’re allowed to cut loos a clip off of anyone’s AK-47, in fact Kyle may be justified in cutting loose on you since he could argue you trying forcibly to take his non-threatening AK-47, for which I assume he has proper permits, represents a reasonable threat to his person.
Has anyone not noticed the difference between deadly force to protect property and deadly force to protect people?
.
Kyle you later named several states in which “someone” told you it is justifiable to use deadly force to stop a trespasser and cited Alabama as one such state.
I had hoped I could get the answer off handgunlaw.us web site for Alabama. It sent me to several Alabama Statutes. Sec 13A-3-25 allows use of deadly force against an idividual engaged in criminal trespass ONLY in defense of a person or to prevent arson. There are three degrees of criminal trespass, in a dwelling, in a building, and one other I did not bother with. Second degree, in a building, specifically prohibits deadly force against a trespasser.
If you or anyone else cares to find the facts, this is the easiest way to do it. I am 99.999% sure there is no jurisdiction in the US where shooting evil doers with spray paint cans will be determined to be justifiable homocide.
Mac McCulloch
You guys have taken this way to far. Shooting to kill with AK-47 is way to much. I was thinking more along the lines of shooting a vandal in the arm with a .22. And how do you know they are not damaging equipment, that could cause a derailment that kills people or they are really spraying highly flammable liquid on the car and are going to light it? Or those spray cans are bombs? How about people placing ties on the track that cause a derailment and kill people.
I might have been wrong about a few facts (I will start to verify facts people tell me).
Since you did not delete the content of your post, it has been reported because you violated the forum policies of name calling and personal attacks.
Captain Nitpick to the rescue
You were vague, didn’t adequately define the bad intents. A normal prudent person would assume the vandal’s bad intents were to use the spray can to spray paint on property
It’ll be tough, but not impossible to kill evil doers by shooting them with spray paint cans. And please to spell chek homicide. Homocide seems to be mixing Greek and Latin to form a new word for suicide.
Why would you expect Zugmann to have deleted the content of his post? I don’t see where you asked him to. Also how does him calling you his favorite count as a personal attack?
Zugmann called me a troll, which I consider to be a personal attack. I will let the moderators handle it.
Apperantly the TSA thinks that spray cans can be used as weapons, which is why they ban them on flights. You could easily blind someone and then attack them.
Kyle,
Nice twist on my unclear language.
If you shoot anyone you have used lethal force. You are going to have a very difficult time convincing a jury that you were in fear for your life if their only weapon was a can of spray paint. You are almost certain to be convicted of assault if he lives, and murder if he dies. You should also expect to loose in civil court regardless of whether he lives or dies.
I sincerely hope that is clear enough.
Mac McCulloch
.
It seems like the majority thinks that shooting actual bullets in the general direct of a vandal/potential terrorist is a bad idea. So now for the improved idea: shot at them with blanks. Since you can’t kill anyone by shooting them with a blank it’s not considered deadly force. Don’t tell the public that your using blanks, or they wouldn’t care about you and your gun and the idea won’t work. The RRs could also try a few water cannons that would also ruin their “art”.
Kyle, again your expressing opinion as fact. Although it’s difficult to kill someone by shooting them with a blank, it’s not impossible. A blank is just about the same as a firecrcacker, it’s the explosive part of the bullet which would propel a piece of metal out of the gun. That explosive force still has to go somewhere, and in this case it’s getting channeled down the gun’s barrel, so it’s more dangerous than a firecracker. Fireman Freddy told us in grade school that firecrackers are dangerous, it’s easy to conclude that a focused firecrackerlike explosion should also be dangerous.
And it’s on the internet, so it must be true
http://www.answerbag.com/q_view/574604 Can you kill someone using blank ammunition?
http://io9.com/5972313/why-a-gun-loaded-with-blanks-can-still-kill-you
[quote]
because they’re used for show, and because the show has to be impressive, blanks are sometimes l
.