Jeep Booby Traps Help
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Jeep Booby Traps Help
In article <3f4c8c4a.6466531@news.bur.adelphia.net>, yobaby@wow.net
wrote:
> never heard anyone complain about too many "boobies"
> Couldn't resist
I don't know what I'd do if She had three boobies. Call an ornitholigist?
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----
wrote:
> never heard anyone complain about too many "boobies"
> Couldn't resist
I don't know what I'd do if She had three boobies. Call an ornitholigist?
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Jeep Booby Traps Help
In article <3f4d8ccb.6594609@news.bur.adelphia.net>, yobaby@wow.net
wrote:
> DITTO!!!!!
Here's the law. Pay close attention to TxPC §9.42(2)(A) and (B)...
SUBCHAPTER D. PROTECTION OF PROPERTY
§ 9.41. Protection of One's Own Property
(a) A person in lawful possession of land or tangible, movable property
is
justified in using force against another when and to the degree the actor
reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to prevent or
terminate the other's trespass on the land or unlawful interference with
the property.
(b) A person unlawfully dispossessed of land or tangible, movable
property by another is justified in using force against the other when
and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the force is immediately
necessary to reenter the land or recover the property if the actor uses
the force immediately or in fresh pursuit after the dispossession and:
(1) the actor reasonably believes the other had no claim of right
when he dispossessed the actor; or
(2) the other accomplished the dispossession by using force, threat,
or fraud against the actor.
Acts 1973, 63rd Leg., p. 883, ch. 399, § 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1974. Amended by
Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 900, § 1.01, eff. Sept. 1, 1994.
§ 9.42. Deadly Force to Protect Property
A person is justified in using deadly force against another to protect
land or tangible, movable property:
(1) if he would be justified in using force against the other under
Section 9.41; and
(2) when and to the degree he reasonably believes the deadly force is
immediately necessary:
(A) to prevent the other's imminent commission of arson, burglary,
robbery, aggravated robbery, theft during the nighttime, or
criminal mischief during the nighttime; or
(B) to prevent the other who is fleeing immediately after
committing burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, or theft during the
nighttime from escaping with the property; and
(3) he reasonably believes that:
(A) the land or property cannot be protected or recovered by any
other means; or
(B) the use of force other than deadly force to protect or recover
the land or property would expose the actor or another to a substantial
risk of death or serious bodily injury.
Acts 1973, 63rd Leg., p. 883, ch. 399, § 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1974. Amended by
Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 900, § 1.01, eff. Sept. 1, 1994.
§ 9.43. Protection of Third Person's Property
A person is justified in using force or deadly force against another to
protect land or tangible, movable property of a third person if, under
the circumstances as he reasonably believes them to be, the actor would
be justified under Section 9.41 or 9.42 in using force or deadly force to
protect his own land or property and:
(1) the actor reasonably believes the unlawful interference
constitutes attempted or consummated theft of or criminal mischief to
the tangible, movable property; or
(2) the actor reasonably believes that:
(A) the third person has requested his protection of the land or
property;
(B) he has a legal duty to protect the third person's land or
property;
or
(C) the third person whose land or property he uses force or deadly
force to protect is the actor's spouse, parent, or child, resides
with
the actor, or is under the actor's care.
Acts 1973, 63rd Leg., p. 883, ch. 399, § 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1974. Amended by
Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 900, § 1.01, eff. Sept. 1, 1994.
§ 9.44. Use of Device to Protect Property
The justification afforded by Sections 9.41 and 9.43 applies to the use
of
a device to protect land or tangible, movable property if:
(1) the device is not designed to cause, or known by the actor to
create a substantial risk of causing, death or serious bodily injury;
and
(2) use of the device is reasonable under all the circumstances as the
actor reasonably believes them to be when he installs the device.
Acts 1973, 63rd Leg., p. 883, ch. 399, § 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1974. Amended by
Acts 1975, 64th Leg., p. 913, ch. 342, § 6, eff. Sept. 1, 1975. Acts
1993,
73rd Leg., ch. 900, § 1.01, eff. Sept. 1, 1994.
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----
wrote:
> DITTO!!!!!
Here's the law. Pay close attention to TxPC §9.42(2)(A) and (B)...
SUBCHAPTER D. PROTECTION OF PROPERTY
§ 9.41. Protection of One's Own Property
(a) A person in lawful possession of land or tangible, movable property
is
justified in using force against another when and to the degree the actor
reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to prevent or
terminate the other's trespass on the land or unlawful interference with
the property.
(b) A person unlawfully dispossessed of land or tangible, movable
property by another is justified in using force against the other when
and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the force is immediately
necessary to reenter the land or recover the property if the actor uses
the force immediately or in fresh pursuit after the dispossession and:
(1) the actor reasonably believes the other had no claim of right
when he dispossessed the actor; or
(2) the other accomplished the dispossession by using force, threat,
or fraud against the actor.
Acts 1973, 63rd Leg., p. 883, ch. 399, § 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1974. Amended by
Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 900, § 1.01, eff. Sept. 1, 1994.
§ 9.42. Deadly Force to Protect Property
A person is justified in using deadly force against another to protect
land or tangible, movable property:
(1) if he would be justified in using force against the other under
Section 9.41; and
(2) when and to the degree he reasonably believes the deadly force is
immediately necessary:
(A) to prevent the other's imminent commission of arson, burglary,
robbery, aggravated robbery, theft during the nighttime, or
criminal mischief during the nighttime; or
(B) to prevent the other who is fleeing immediately after
committing burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, or theft during the
nighttime from escaping with the property; and
(3) he reasonably believes that:
(A) the land or property cannot be protected or recovered by any
other means; or
(B) the use of force other than deadly force to protect or recover
the land or property would expose the actor or another to a substantial
risk of death or serious bodily injury.
Acts 1973, 63rd Leg., p. 883, ch. 399, § 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1974. Amended by
Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 900, § 1.01, eff. Sept. 1, 1994.
§ 9.43. Protection of Third Person's Property
A person is justified in using force or deadly force against another to
protect land or tangible, movable property of a third person if, under
the circumstances as he reasonably believes them to be, the actor would
be justified under Section 9.41 or 9.42 in using force or deadly force to
protect his own land or property and:
(1) the actor reasonably believes the unlawful interference
constitutes attempted or consummated theft of or criminal mischief to
the tangible, movable property; or
(2) the actor reasonably believes that:
(A) the third person has requested his protection of the land or
property;
(B) he has a legal duty to protect the third person's land or
property;
or
(C) the third person whose land or property he uses force or deadly
force to protect is the actor's spouse, parent, or child, resides
with
the actor, or is under the actor's care.
Acts 1973, 63rd Leg., p. 883, ch. 399, § 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1974. Amended by
Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 900, § 1.01, eff. Sept. 1, 1994.
§ 9.44. Use of Device to Protect Property
The justification afforded by Sections 9.41 and 9.43 applies to the use
of
a device to protect land or tangible, movable property if:
(1) the device is not designed to cause, or known by the actor to
create a substantial risk of causing, death or serious bodily injury;
and
(2) use of the device is reasonable under all the circumstances as the
actor reasonably believes them to be when he installs the device.
Acts 1973, 63rd Leg., p. 883, ch. 399, § 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1974. Amended by
Acts 1975, 64th Leg., p. 913, ch. 342, § 6, eff. Sept. 1, 1975. Acts
1993,
73rd Leg., ch. 900, § 1.01, eff. Sept. 1, 1994.
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Jeep Booby Traps Help
In article <3f4d8ccb.6594609@news.bur.adelphia.net>, yobaby@wow.net
wrote:
> DITTO!!!!!
Here's the law. Pay close attention to TxPC §9.42(2)(A) and (B)...
SUBCHAPTER D. PROTECTION OF PROPERTY
§ 9.41. Protection of One's Own Property
(a) A person in lawful possession of land or tangible, movable property
is
justified in using force against another when and to the degree the actor
reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to prevent or
terminate the other's trespass on the land or unlawful interference with
the property.
(b) A person unlawfully dispossessed of land or tangible, movable
property by another is justified in using force against the other when
and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the force is immediately
necessary to reenter the land or recover the property if the actor uses
the force immediately or in fresh pursuit after the dispossession and:
(1) the actor reasonably believes the other had no claim of right
when he dispossessed the actor; or
(2) the other accomplished the dispossession by using force, threat,
or fraud against the actor.
Acts 1973, 63rd Leg., p. 883, ch. 399, § 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1974. Amended by
Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 900, § 1.01, eff. Sept. 1, 1994.
§ 9.42. Deadly Force to Protect Property
A person is justified in using deadly force against another to protect
land or tangible, movable property:
(1) if he would be justified in using force against the other under
Section 9.41; and
(2) when and to the degree he reasonably believes the deadly force is
immediately necessary:
(A) to prevent the other's imminent commission of arson, burglary,
robbery, aggravated robbery, theft during the nighttime, or
criminal mischief during the nighttime; or
(B) to prevent the other who is fleeing immediately after
committing burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, or theft during the
nighttime from escaping with the property; and
(3) he reasonably believes that:
(A) the land or property cannot be protected or recovered by any
other means; or
(B) the use of force other than deadly force to protect or recover
the land or property would expose the actor or another to a substantial
risk of death or serious bodily injury.
Acts 1973, 63rd Leg., p. 883, ch. 399, § 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1974. Amended by
Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 900, § 1.01, eff. Sept. 1, 1994.
§ 9.43. Protection of Third Person's Property
A person is justified in using force or deadly force against another to
protect land or tangible, movable property of a third person if, under
the circumstances as he reasonably believes them to be, the actor would
be justified under Section 9.41 or 9.42 in using force or deadly force to
protect his own land or property and:
(1) the actor reasonably believes the unlawful interference
constitutes attempted or consummated theft of or criminal mischief to
the tangible, movable property; or
(2) the actor reasonably believes that:
(A) the third person has requested his protection of the land or
property;
(B) he has a legal duty to protect the third person's land or
property;
or
(C) the third person whose land or property he uses force or deadly
force to protect is the actor's spouse, parent, or child, resides
with
the actor, or is under the actor's care.
Acts 1973, 63rd Leg., p. 883, ch. 399, § 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1974. Amended by
Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 900, § 1.01, eff. Sept. 1, 1994.
§ 9.44. Use of Device to Protect Property
The justification afforded by Sections 9.41 and 9.43 applies to the use
of
a device to protect land or tangible, movable property if:
(1) the device is not designed to cause, or known by the actor to
create a substantial risk of causing, death or serious bodily injury;
and
(2) use of the device is reasonable under all the circumstances as the
actor reasonably believes them to be when he installs the device.
Acts 1973, 63rd Leg., p. 883, ch. 399, § 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1974. Amended by
Acts 1975, 64th Leg., p. 913, ch. 342, § 6, eff. Sept. 1, 1975. Acts
1993,
73rd Leg., ch. 900, § 1.01, eff. Sept. 1, 1994.
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----
wrote:
> DITTO!!!!!
Here's the law. Pay close attention to TxPC §9.42(2)(A) and (B)...
SUBCHAPTER D. PROTECTION OF PROPERTY
§ 9.41. Protection of One's Own Property
(a) A person in lawful possession of land or tangible, movable property
is
justified in using force against another when and to the degree the actor
reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to prevent or
terminate the other's trespass on the land or unlawful interference with
the property.
(b) A person unlawfully dispossessed of land or tangible, movable
property by another is justified in using force against the other when
and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the force is immediately
necessary to reenter the land or recover the property if the actor uses
the force immediately or in fresh pursuit after the dispossession and:
(1) the actor reasonably believes the other had no claim of right
when he dispossessed the actor; or
(2) the other accomplished the dispossession by using force, threat,
or fraud against the actor.
Acts 1973, 63rd Leg., p. 883, ch. 399, § 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1974. Amended by
Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 900, § 1.01, eff. Sept. 1, 1994.
§ 9.42. Deadly Force to Protect Property
A person is justified in using deadly force against another to protect
land or tangible, movable property:
(1) if he would be justified in using force against the other under
Section 9.41; and
(2) when and to the degree he reasonably believes the deadly force is
immediately necessary:
(A) to prevent the other's imminent commission of arson, burglary,
robbery, aggravated robbery, theft during the nighttime, or
criminal mischief during the nighttime; or
(B) to prevent the other who is fleeing immediately after
committing burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, or theft during the
nighttime from escaping with the property; and
(3) he reasonably believes that:
(A) the land or property cannot be protected or recovered by any
other means; or
(B) the use of force other than deadly force to protect or recover
the land or property would expose the actor or another to a substantial
risk of death or serious bodily injury.
Acts 1973, 63rd Leg., p. 883, ch. 399, § 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1974. Amended by
Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 900, § 1.01, eff. Sept. 1, 1994.
§ 9.43. Protection of Third Person's Property
A person is justified in using force or deadly force against another to
protect land or tangible, movable property of a third person if, under
the circumstances as he reasonably believes them to be, the actor would
be justified under Section 9.41 or 9.42 in using force or deadly force to
protect his own land or property and:
(1) the actor reasonably believes the unlawful interference
constitutes attempted or consummated theft of or criminal mischief to
the tangible, movable property; or
(2) the actor reasonably believes that:
(A) the third person has requested his protection of the land or
property;
(B) he has a legal duty to protect the third person's land or
property;
or
(C) the third person whose land or property he uses force or deadly
force to protect is the actor's spouse, parent, or child, resides
with
the actor, or is under the actor's care.
Acts 1973, 63rd Leg., p. 883, ch. 399, § 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1974. Amended by
Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 900, § 1.01, eff. Sept. 1, 1994.
§ 9.44. Use of Device to Protect Property
The justification afforded by Sections 9.41 and 9.43 applies to the use
of
a device to protect land or tangible, movable property if:
(1) the device is not designed to cause, or known by the actor to
create a substantial risk of causing, death or serious bodily injury;
and
(2) use of the device is reasonable under all the circumstances as the
actor reasonably believes them to be when he installs the device.
Acts 1973, 63rd Leg., p. 883, ch. 399, § 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1974. Amended by
Acts 1975, 64th Leg., p. 913, ch. 342, § 6, eff. Sept. 1, 1975. Acts
1993,
73rd Leg., ch. 900, § 1.01, eff. Sept. 1, 1994.
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Jeep Booby Traps Help
Yes, but we've already established that night makes it impossible to
determine if the threat is there or not, so the victim gets the benefit
of the doubt there. You HAVE TO ASSUME there is the potential for bodily
harm at night. I'm not arguing that point. The cover of night
constitutes threat.
So:
No one has come up with an example of a state that permits deadly force
WITHOUT THREAT OF BODILY HARM OR DEATH yet. That's what started this
whole thing. The cover of night constitutes threat.
Jeepers wrote:
> In article <uFL2b.110$1h2.90@newssvr22.news.prodigy.com>,
> twaldron <twaldron@sbcOBVIOUSglobal.net> wrote:
>
>
>>Yes, fear of bodily harm is present there. Still, no one has come up
>>with an example of a state that permits deadly force WITHOUT THREAT OF
>>BODILY HARM OR DEATH yet. That's what started this whole thing.
>>
>
>
>
> That would be Texas, after dark.
>
>
> -----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
> http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
> -----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----
--
__________________________________________________ _________
tw
03 TJ Rubicon
01 XJ Sport
There is a very fine line between "hobby" and "mental illness."
-- Dave Barry
http://www.7slotgrille.com/jeepers/t...ron/index.html
(Please remove the OBVIOUS to reply by email)
__________________________________________________ _________
determine if the threat is there or not, so the victim gets the benefit
of the doubt there. You HAVE TO ASSUME there is the potential for bodily
harm at night. I'm not arguing that point. The cover of night
constitutes threat.
So:
No one has come up with an example of a state that permits deadly force
WITHOUT THREAT OF BODILY HARM OR DEATH yet. That's what started this
whole thing. The cover of night constitutes threat.
Jeepers wrote:
> In article <uFL2b.110$1h2.90@newssvr22.news.prodigy.com>,
> twaldron <twaldron@sbcOBVIOUSglobal.net> wrote:
>
>
>>Yes, fear of bodily harm is present there. Still, no one has come up
>>with an example of a state that permits deadly force WITHOUT THREAT OF
>>BODILY HARM OR DEATH yet. That's what started this whole thing.
>>
>
>
>
> That would be Texas, after dark.
>
>
> -----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
> http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
> -----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----
--
__________________________________________________ _________
tw
03 TJ Rubicon
01 XJ Sport
There is a very fine line between "hobby" and "mental illness."
-- Dave Barry
http://www.7slotgrille.com/jeepers/t...ron/index.html
(Please remove the OBVIOUS to reply by email)
__________________________________________________ _________
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Jeep Booby Traps Help
Yes, but we've already established that night makes it impossible to
determine if the threat is there or not, so the victim gets the benefit
of the doubt there. You HAVE TO ASSUME there is the potential for bodily
harm at night. I'm not arguing that point. The cover of night
constitutes threat.
So:
No one has come up with an example of a state that permits deadly force
WITHOUT THREAT OF BODILY HARM OR DEATH yet. That's what started this
whole thing. The cover of night constitutes threat.
Jeepers wrote:
> In article <uFL2b.110$1h2.90@newssvr22.news.prodigy.com>,
> twaldron <twaldron@sbcOBVIOUSglobal.net> wrote:
>
>
>>Yes, fear of bodily harm is present there. Still, no one has come up
>>with an example of a state that permits deadly force WITHOUT THREAT OF
>>BODILY HARM OR DEATH yet. That's what started this whole thing.
>>
>
>
>
> That would be Texas, after dark.
>
>
> -----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
> http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
> -----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----
--
__________________________________________________ _________
tw
03 TJ Rubicon
01 XJ Sport
There is a very fine line between "hobby" and "mental illness."
-- Dave Barry
http://www.7slotgrille.com/jeepers/t...ron/index.html
(Please remove the OBVIOUS to reply by email)
__________________________________________________ _________
determine if the threat is there or not, so the victim gets the benefit
of the doubt there. You HAVE TO ASSUME there is the potential for bodily
harm at night. I'm not arguing that point. The cover of night
constitutes threat.
So:
No one has come up with an example of a state that permits deadly force
WITHOUT THREAT OF BODILY HARM OR DEATH yet. That's what started this
whole thing. The cover of night constitutes threat.
Jeepers wrote:
> In article <uFL2b.110$1h2.90@newssvr22.news.prodigy.com>,
> twaldron <twaldron@sbcOBVIOUSglobal.net> wrote:
>
>
>>Yes, fear of bodily harm is present there. Still, no one has come up
>>with an example of a state that permits deadly force WITHOUT THREAT OF
>>BODILY HARM OR DEATH yet. That's what started this whole thing.
>>
>
>
>
> That would be Texas, after dark.
>
>
> -----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
> http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
> -----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----
--
__________________________________________________ _________
tw
03 TJ Rubicon
01 XJ Sport
There is a very fine line between "hobby" and "mental illness."
-- Dave Barry
http://www.7slotgrille.com/jeepers/t...ron/index.html
(Please remove the OBVIOUS to reply by email)
__________________________________________________ _________
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Jeep Booby Traps Help
In article <8fM2b.121$1h2.47@newssvr22.news.prodigy.com>,
twaldron <twaldron@sbcOBVIOUSglobal.net> wrote:
> Yes, but we've already established that night makes it impossible to
> determine if the threat is there or not, so the victim gets the benefit
> of the doubt there. You HAVE TO ASSUME there is the potential for bodily
> harm at night. I'm not arguing that point. The cover of night
> constitutes threat.
>
> So:
>
> No one has come up with an example of a state that permits deadly force
> WITHOUT THREAT OF BODILY HARM OR DEATH yet. That's what started this
> whole thing. The cover of night constitutes threat.
Take this over to tx.guns. You are not reading the law. It's clear.
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----
twaldron <twaldron@sbcOBVIOUSglobal.net> wrote:
> Yes, but we've already established that night makes it impossible to
> determine if the threat is there or not, so the victim gets the benefit
> of the doubt there. You HAVE TO ASSUME there is the potential for bodily
> harm at night. I'm not arguing that point. The cover of night
> constitutes threat.
>
> So:
>
> No one has come up with an example of a state that permits deadly force
> WITHOUT THREAT OF BODILY HARM OR DEATH yet. That's what started this
> whole thing. The cover of night constitutes threat.
Take this over to tx.guns. You are not reading the law. It's clear.
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Jeep Booby Traps Help
In article <8fM2b.121$1h2.47@newssvr22.news.prodigy.com>,
twaldron <twaldron@sbcOBVIOUSglobal.net> wrote:
> Yes, but we've already established that night makes it impossible to
> determine if the threat is there or not, so the victim gets the benefit
> of the doubt there. You HAVE TO ASSUME there is the potential for bodily
> harm at night. I'm not arguing that point. The cover of night
> constitutes threat.
>
> So:
>
> No one has come up with an example of a state that permits deadly force
> WITHOUT THREAT OF BODILY HARM OR DEATH yet. That's what started this
> whole thing. The cover of night constitutes threat.
Take this over to tx.guns. You are not reading the law. It's clear.
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----
twaldron <twaldron@sbcOBVIOUSglobal.net> wrote:
> Yes, but we've already established that night makes it impossible to
> determine if the threat is there or not, so the victim gets the benefit
> of the doubt there. You HAVE TO ASSUME there is the potential for bodily
> harm at night. I'm not arguing that point. The cover of night
> constitutes threat.
>
> So:
>
> No one has come up with an example of a state that permits deadly force
> WITHOUT THREAT OF BODILY HARM OR DEATH yet. That's what started this
> whole thing. The cover of night constitutes threat.
Take this over to tx.guns. You are not reading the law. It's clear.
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Jeep Booby Traps Help
Not in Texas. If someone is stealing your property at night and you have a
permit, shoot the bastard.
--
"twaldron" <twaldron@sbcOBVIOUSglobal.net> wrote in message
news:8fM2b.121$1h2.47@newssvr22.news.prodigy.com.. .
> Yes, but we've already established that night makes it impossible to
> determine if the threat is there or not, so the victim gets the benefit
> of the doubt there. You HAVE TO ASSUME there is the potential for bodily
> harm at night. I'm not arguing that point. The cover of night
> constitutes threat.
>
> So:
>
> No one has come up with an example of a state that permits deadly force
> WITHOUT THREAT OF BODILY HARM OR DEATH yet. That's what started this
> whole thing. The cover of night constitutes threat.
>
> Jeepers wrote:
> > In article <uFL2b.110$1h2.90@newssvr22.news.prodigy.com>,
> > twaldron <twaldron@sbcOBVIOUSglobal.net> wrote:
> >
> >
> >>Yes, fear of bodily harm is present there. Still, no one has come up
> >>with an example of a state that permits deadly force WITHOUT THREAT OF
> >>BODILY HARM OR DEATH yet. That's what started this whole thing.
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> > That would be Texas, after dark.
> >
> >
> > -----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
> > http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
> > -----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----
>
> --
> __________________________________________________ _________
> tw
> 03 TJ Rubicon
> 01 XJ Sport
>
> There is a very fine line between "hobby" and "mental illness."
> -- Dave Barry
>
> http://www.7slotgrille.com/jeepers/t...ron/index.html
> (Please remove the OBVIOUS to reply by email)
> __________________________________________________ _________
>
permit, shoot the bastard.
--
"twaldron" <twaldron@sbcOBVIOUSglobal.net> wrote in message
news:8fM2b.121$1h2.47@newssvr22.news.prodigy.com.. .
> Yes, but we've already established that night makes it impossible to
> determine if the threat is there or not, so the victim gets the benefit
> of the doubt there. You HAVE TO ASSUME there is the potential for bodily
> harm at night. I'm not arguing that point. The cover of night
> constitutes threat.
>
> So:
>
> No one has come up with an example of a state that permits deadly force
> WITHOUT THREAT OF BODILY HARM OR DEATH yet. That's what started this
> whole thing. The cover of night constitutes threat.
>
> Jeepers wrote:
> > In article <uFL2b.110$1h2.90@newssvr22.news.prodigy.com>,
> > twaldron <twaldron@sbcOBVIOUSglobal.net> wrote:
> >
> >
> >>Yes, fear of bodily harm is present there. Still, no one has come up
> >>with an example of a state that permits deadly force WITHOUT THREAT OF
> >>BODILY HARM OR DEATH yet. That's what started this whole thing.
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> > That would be Texas, after dark.
> >
> >
> > -----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
> > http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
> > -----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----
>
> --
> __________________________________________________ _________
> tw
> 03 TJ Rubicon
> 01 XJ Sport
>
> There is a very fine line between "hobby" and "mental illness."
> -- Dave Barry
>
> http://www.7slotgrille.com/jeepers/t...ron/index.html
> (Please remove the OBVIOUS to reply by email)
> __________________________________________________ _________
>
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Jeep Booby Traps Help
Not in Texas. If someone is stealing your property at night and you have a
permit, shoot the bastard.
--
"twaldron" <twaldron@sbcOBVIOUSglobal.net> wrote in message
news:8fM2b.121$1h2.47@newssvr22.news.prodigy.com.. .
> Yes, but we've already established that night makes it impossible to
> determine if the threat is there or not, so the victim gets the benefit
> of the doubt there. You HAVE TO ASSUME there is the potential for bodily
> harm at night. I'm not arguing that point. The cover of night
> constitutes threat.
>
> So:
>
> No one has come up with an example of a state that permits deadly force
> WITHOUT THREAT OF BODILY HARM OR DEATH yet. That's what started this
> whole thing. The cover of night constitutes threat.
>
> Jeepers wrote:
> > In article <uFL2b.110$1h2.90@newssvr22.news.prodigy.com>,
> > twaldron <twaldron@sbcOBVIOUSglobal.net> wrote:
> >
> >
> >>Yes, fear of bodily harm is present there. Still, no one has come up
> >>with an example of a state that permits deadly force WITHOUT THREAT OF
> >>BODILY HARM OR DEATH yet. That's what started this whole thing.
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> > That would be Texas, after dark.
> >
> >
> > -----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
> > http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
> > -----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----
>
> --
> __________________________________________________ _________
> tw
> 03 TJ Rubicon
> 01 XJ Sport
>
> There is a very fine line between "hobby" and "mental illness."
> -- Dave Barry
>
> http://www.7slotgrille.com/jeepers/t...ron/index.html
> (Please remove the OBVIOUS to reply by email)
> __________________________________________________ _________
>
permit, shoot the bastard.
--
"twaldron" <twaldron@sbcOBVIOUSglobal.net> wrote in message
news:8fM2b.121$1h2.47@newssvr22.news.prodigy.com.. .
> Yes, but we've already established that night makes it impossible to
> determine if the threat is there or not, so the victim gets the benefit
> of the doubt there. You HAVE TO ASSUME there is the potential for bodily
> harm at night. I'm not arguing that point. The cover of night
> constitutes threat.
>
> So:
>
> No one has come up with an example of a state that permits deadly force
> WITHOUT THREAT OF BODILY HARM OR DEATH yet. That's what started this
> whole thing. The cover of night constitutes threat.
>
> Jeepers wrote:
> > In article <uFL2b.110$1h2.90@newssvr22.news.prodigy.com>,
> > twaldron <twaldron@sbcOBVIOUSglobal.net> wrote:
> >
> >
> >>Yes, fear of bodily harm is present there. Still, no one has come up
> >>with an example of a state that permits deadly force WITHOUT THREAT OF
> >>BODILY HARM OR DEATH yet. That's what started this whole thing.
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> > That would be Texas, after dark.
> >
> >
> > -----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
> > http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
> > -----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----
>
> --
> __________________________________________________ _________
> tw
> 03 TJ Rubicon
> 01 XJ Sport
>
> There is a very fine line between "hobby" and "mental illness."
> -- Dave Barry
>
> http://www.7slotgrille.com/jeepers/t...ron/index.html
> (Please remove the OBVIOUS to reply by email)
> __________________________________________________ _________
>
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Jeep Booby Traps Help
"Texas: It's like a whole 'nother Country!"
God love 'em!
"Larry Hendrick" <lhendrick@rgv.rr.com> wrote in message
news:MvM2b.16148$f76.203518@twister.austin.rr.com. ..
> Not in Texas. If someone is stealing your property at night and you have
a
> permit, shoot the bastard.
>
> --
>
>
> "twaldron" <twaldron@sbcOBVIOUSglobal.net> wrote in message
> news:8fM2b.121$1h2.47@newssvr22.news.prodigy.com.. .
> > Yes, but we've already established that night makes it impossible to
> > determine if the threat is there or not, so the victim gets the benefit
> > of the doubt there. You HAVE TO ASSUME there is the potential for bodily
> > harm at night. I'm not arguing that point. The cover of night
> > constitutes threat.
> >
> > So:
> >
> > No one has come up with an example of a state that permits deadly force
> > WITHOUT THREAT OF BODILY HARM OR DEATH yet. That's what started this
> > whole thing. The cover of night constitutes threat.
> >
> > Jeepers wrote:
> > > In article <uFL2b.110$1h2.90@newssvr22.news.prodigy.com>,
> > > twaldron <twaldron@sbcOBVIOUSglobal.net> wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > >>Yes, fear of bodily harm is present there. Still, no one has come up
> > >>with an example of a state that permits deadly force WITHOUT THREAT OF
> > >>BODILY HARM OR DEATH yet. That's what started this whole thing.
> > >>
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > That would be Texas, after dark.
> > >
> > >
> > > -----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
> > > http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
> > > -----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----
> >
> > --
> > __________________________________________________ _________
> > tw
> > 03 TJ Rubicon
> > 01 XJ Sport
> >
> > There is a very fine line between "hobby" and "mental illness."
> > -- Dave Barry
> >
> > http://www.7slotgrille.com/jeepers/t...ron/index.html
> > (Please remove the OBVIOUS to reply by email)
> > __________________________________________________ _________
> >
>
>
God love 'em!
"Larry Hendrick" <lhendrick@rgv.rr.com> wrote in message
news:MvM2b.16148$f76.203518@twister.austin.rr.com. ..
> Not in Texas. If someone is stealing your property at night and you have
a
> permit, shoot the bastard.
>
> --
>
>
> "twaldron" <twaldron@sbcOBVIOUSglobal.net> wrote in message
> news:8fM2b.121$1h2.47@newssvr22.news.prodigy.com.. .
> > Yes, but we've already established that night makes it impossible to
> > determine if the threat is there or not, so the victim gets the benefit
> > of the doubt there. You HAVE TO ASSUME there is the potential for bodily
> > harm at night. I'm not arguing that point. The cover of night
> > constitutes threat.
> >
> > So:
> >
> > No one has come up with an example of a state that permits deadly force
> > WITHOUT THREAT OF BODILY HARM OR DEATH yet. That's what started this
> > whole thing. The cover of night constitutes threat.
> >
> > Jeepers wrote:
> > > In article <uFL2b.110$1h2.90@newssvr22.news.prodigy.com>,
> > > twaldron <twaldron@sbcOBVIOUSglobal.net> wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > >>Yes, fear of bodily harm is present there. Still, no one has come up
> > >>with an example of a state that permits deadly force WITHOUT THREAT OF
> > >>BODILY HARM OR DEATH yet. That's what started this whole thing.
> > >>
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > That would be Texas, after dark.
> > >
> > >
> > > -----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
> > > http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
> > > -----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----
> >
> > --
> > __________________________________________________ _________
> > tw
> > 03 TJ Rubicon
> > 01 XJ Sport
> >
> > There is a very fine line between "hobby" and "mental illness."
> > -- Dave Barry
> >
> > http://www.7slotgrille.com/jeepers/t...ron/index.html
> > (Please remove the OBVIOUS to reply by email)
> > __________________________________________________ _________
> >
>
>
