Jeep Booby Traps Help
#201
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Jeep Booby Traps Help
Approximately 8/26/03 16:40, Grumman-581 uttered for posterity:
> Here in Texas, we can shoot those gang punks that think they can mark their
> territory at night with spray cans...
Yeah, make 'em do it with urine like real top predators....
> Damn, it's great to live in Texas...
Kinda hot and sticky most of the time when I wuz in Dallas/Plano.
El Paso is nice, never sticky.
> Here in Texas, we can shoot those gang punks that think they can mark their
> territory at night with spray cans...
Yeah, make 'em do it with urine like real top predators....
> Damn, it's great to live in Texas...
Kinda hot and sticky most of the time when I wuz in Dallas/Plano.
El Paso is nice, never sticky.
#202
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Jeep Booby Traps Help
Approximately 8/26/03 16:48, Grumman-581 uttered for posterity:
> "Jeepers" wrote ...
>> What's good for California is NOT good for Texas.
>
> Oh, I don't know...
> What if Kalifornia fell off into the ocean?
Unfortunately, it is coming up and out of the ocean, depressing
a real state, Nevada, in the process. Worse, Kalifornia is heading
north thru Oregon.
> "Jeepers" wrote ...
>> What's good for California is NOT good for Texas.
>
> Oh, I don't know...
> What if Kalifornia fell off into the ocean?
Unfortunately, it is coming up and out of the ocean, depressing
a real state, Nevada, in the process. Worse, Kalifornia is heading
north thru Oregon.
#203
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Jeep Booby Traps Help
Approximately 8/26/03 16:48, Grumman-581 uttered for posterity:
> "Jeepers" wrote ...
>> What's good for California is NOT good for Texas.
>
> Oh, I don't know...
> What if Kalifornia fell off into the ocean?
Unfortunately, it is coming up and out of the ocean, depressing
a real state, Nevada, in the process. Worse, Kalifornia is heading
north thru Oregon.
> "Jeepers" wrote ...
>> What's good for California is NOT good for Texas.
>
> Oh, I don't know...
> What if Kalifornia fell off into the ocean?
Unfortunately, it is coming up and out of the ocean, depressing
a real state, Nevada, in the process. Worse, Kalifornia is heading
north thru Oregon.
#204
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Jeep Booby Traps Help
I'm from UK, Pennsyvania, Florida, Virginia, Illinois, Commiefornia twice,
Germany....
What does that make me?
Lost?
PS been to Texas.....I like the laws, the folks are real great (mostly) but
the land....flat hot and barren... It's not for this sailor...
"Jeepers" <moomesa@INVALIDfnbnet.net> wrote in message
news:moomesa-FAB10D.21362926082003@corp.newsfeeds.com...
> In article <SGU2b.4803$IJ6.473689@twister.socal.rr.com>,
> "Richard Harris" <SHARRIS11@san.rr.com> wrote:
>
> > "Russ B" <gofast@REMOVE_THIStexoma.net> wrote in message
> > news:bigohu0gtj@enews3.newsguy.com...
> > > No sweat Jeepers...We're on the same team. These idiots just can't
belive
> > we
> > > still have rights in TX can they?
> > > RB
> >
> > Russ,
> > Understood about the team thing and that the law in Texas probably
prevents
> > crime, but that "Yankee" crap should have died a long time before you
were
> > born, and using IDIOTs to refer to fellow jeepers because we live
somewhere
> > other than Texas,is a perfect way to **** off your "fellow jeepers"!
And
> > you Russ B, unless you are a native American, which by your writing I
> > highly doubt, are at least a descendant of FOREIGNERS. This country as
we
> > know it was built on foreigners both legal and (unfortunately) illegal.
> > Think before you write! I'm not happy about illegal immigration either,
but
> > don't knock those who are here legally...Like ME!!!!!!
> >
> > PS: I just have a Special Operations Command Sticker on my Bumper to
deter
> > would-be thieves. I could park in Bario Logan or East LA with that and
not
> > have any problems....So far so Good.
> >
> >
>
> A yankee is anyone north of the Mason-Nixon line.
>
> Texas was it's own country, I decend from Texas, the Nation.
>
> You can't help it if you are not from Texas :^) we won't hold it
> against you.
>
>
> -----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
> http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
> -----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----
Germany....
What does that make me?
Lost?
PS been to Texas.....I like the laws, the folks are real great (mostly) but
the land....flat hot and barren... It's not for this sailor...
"Jeepers" <moomesa@INVALIDfnbnet.net> wrote in message
news:moomesa-FAB10D.21362926082003@corp.newsfeeds.com...
> In article <SGU2b.4803$IJ6.473689@twister.socal.rr.com>,
> "Richard Harris" <SHARRIS11@san.rr.com> wrote:
>
> > "Russ B" <gofast@REMOVE_THIStexoma.net> wrote in message
> > news:bigohu0gtj@enews3.newsguy.com...
> > > No sweat Jeepers...We're on the same team. These idiots just can't
belive
> > we
> > > still have rights in TX can they?
> > > RB
> >
> > Russ,
> > Understood about the team thing and that the law in Texas probably
prevents
> > crime, but that "Yankee" crap should have died a long time before you
were
> > born, and using IDIOTs to refer to fellow jeepers because we live
somewhere
> > other than Texas,is a perfect way to **** off your "fellow jeepers"!
And
> > you Russ B, unless you are a native American, which by your writing I
> > highly doubt, are at least a descendant of FOREIGNERS. This country as
we
> > know it was built on foreigners both legal and (unfortunately) illegal.
> > Think before you write! I'm not happy about illegal immigration either,
but
> > don't knock those who are here legally...Like ME!!!!!!
> >
> > PS: I just have a Special Operations Command Sticker on my Bumper to
deter
> > would-be thieves. I could park in Bario Logan or East LA with that and
not
> > have any problems....So far so Good.
> >
> >
>
> A yankee is anyone north of the Mason-Nixon line.
>
> Texas was it's own country, I decend from Texas, the Nation.
>
> You can't help it if you are not from Texas :^) we won't hold it
> against you.
>
>
> -----= 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! =-----
#205
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Jeep Booby Traps Help
I'm from UK, Pennsyvania, Florida, Virginia, Illinois, Commiefornia twice,
Germany....
What does that make me?
Lost?
PS been to Texas.....I like the laws, the folks are real great (mostly) but
the land....flat hot and barren... It's not for this sailor...
"Jeepers" <moomesa@INVALIDfnbnet.net> wrote in message
news:moomesa-FAB10D.21362926082003@corp.newsfeeds.com...
> In article <SGU2b.4803$IJ6.473689@twister.socal.rr.com>,
> "Richard Harris" <SHARRIS11@san.rr.com> wrote:
>
> > "Russ B" <gofast@REMOVE_THIStexoma.net> wrote in message
> > news:bigohu0gtj@enews3.newsguy.com...
> > > No sweat Jeepers...We're on the same team. These idiots just can't
belive
> > we
> > > still have rights in TX can they?
> > > RB
> >
> > Russ,
> > Understood about the team thing and that the law in Texas probably
prevents
> > crime, but that "Yankee" crap should have died a long time before you
were
> > born, and using IDIOTs to refer to fellow jeepers because we live
somewhere
> > other than Texas,is a perfect way to **** off your "fellow jeepers"!
And
> > you Russ B, unless you are a native American, which by your writing I
> > highly doubt, are at least a descendant of FOREIGNERS. This country as
we
> > know it was built on foreigners both legal and (unfortunately) illegal.
> > Think before you write! I'm not happy about illegal immigration either,
but
> > don't knock those who are here legally...Like ME!!!!!!
> >
> > PS: I just have a Special Operations Command Sticker on my Bumper to
deter
> > would-be thieves. I could park in Bario Logan or East LA with that and
not
> > have any problems....So far so Good.
> >
> >
>
> A yankee is anyone north of the Mason-Nixon line.
>
> Texas was it's own country, I decend from Texas, the Nation.
>
> You can't help it if you are not from Texas :^) we won't hold it
> against you.
>
>
> -----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
> http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
> -----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----
Germany....
What does that make me?
Lost?
PS been to Texas.....I like the laws, the folks are real great (mostly) but
the land....flat hot and barren... It's not for this sailor...
"Jeepers" <moomesa@INVALIDfnbnet.net> wrote in message
news:moomesa-FAB10D.21362926082003@corp.newsfeeds.com...
> In article <SGU2b.4803$IJ6.473689@twister.socal.rr.com>,
> "Richard Harris" <SHARRIS11@san.rr.com> wrote:
>
> > "Russ B" <gofast@REMOVE_THIStexoma.net> wrote in message
> > news:bigohu0gtj@enews3.newsguy.com...
> > > No sweat Jeepers...We're on the same team. These idiots just can't
belive
> > we
> > > still have rights in TX can they?
> > > RB
> >
> > Russ,
> > Understood about the team thing and that the law in Texas probably
prevents
> > crime, but that "Yankee" crap should have died a long time before you
were
> > born, and using IDIOTs to refer to fellow jeepers because we live
somewhere
> > other than Texas,is a perfect way to **** off your "fellow jeepers"!
And
> > you Russ B, unless you are a native American, which by your writing I
> > highly doubt, are at least a descendant of FOREIGNERS. This country as
we
> > know it was built on foreigners both legal and (unfortunately) illegal.
> > Think before you write! I'm not happy about illegal immigration either,
but
> > don't knock those who are here legally...Like ME!!!!!!
> >
> > PS: I just have a Special Operations Command Sticker on my Bumper to
deter
> > would-be thieves. I could park in Bario Logan or East LA with that and
not
> > have any problems....So far so Good.
> >
> >
>
> A yankee is anyone north of the Mason-Nixon line.
>
> Texas was it's own country, I decend from Texas, the Nation.
>
> You can't help it if you are not from Texas :^) we won't hold it
> against you.
>
>
> -----= 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! =-----
#206
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Jeep Booby Traps Help
In article <_gV2b.4804$IJ6.478840@twister.socal.rr.com>,
"Richard Harris" <SHARRIS11@san.rr.com> wrote:
> I'm from UK, Pennsyvania, Florida, Virginia, Illinois, Commiefornia twice,
> Germany....
> What does that make me?
> Lost?
Well, you ain't a yankee then.
> PS been to Texas.....I like the laws, the folks are real great (mostly) but
> the land....flat hot and barren... It's not for this sailor...
Mountains in West Texas, desert in Southwest, Piney woods, sandy
beaches, the lush valley of McAllen, swamps near Houston, the Texas hill
country an the rolling hills of LaGrange, I dunno about flat or barren.
Sounds like a blanket statement.
Lots and lots of Jeeping opportunity!
It's hotter in OK and MO than here, right now.
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----
"Richard Harris" <SHARRIS11@san.rr.com> wrote:
> I'm from UK, Pennsyvania, Florida, Virginia, Illinois, Commiefornia twice,
> Germany....
> What does that make me?
> Lost?
Well, you ain't a yankee then.
> PS been to Texas.....I like the laws, the folks are real great (mostly) but
> the land....flat hot and barren... It's not for this sailor...
Mountains in West Texas, desert in Southwest, Piney woods, sandy
beaches, the lush valley of McAllen, swamps near Houston, the Texas hill
country an the rolling hills of LaGrange, I dunno about flat or barren.
Sounds like a blanket statement.
Lots and lots of Jeeping opportunity!
It's hotter in OK and MO than here, right now.
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----
#207
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Jeep Booby Traps Help
In article <_gV2b.4804$IJ6.478840@twister.socal.rr.com>,
"Richard Harris" <SHARRIS11@san.rr.com> wrote:
> I'm from UK, Pennsyvania, Florida, Virginia, Illinois, Commiefornia twice,
> Germany....
> What does that make me?
> Lost?
Well, you ain't a yankee then.
> PS been to Texas.....I like the laws, the folks are real great (mostly) but
> the land....flat hot and barren... It's not for this sailor...
Mountains in West Texas, desert in Southwest, Piney woods, sandy
beaches, the lush valley of McAllen, swamps near Houston, the Texas hill
country an the rolling hills of LaGrange, I dunno about flat or barren.
Sounds like a blanket statement.
Lots and lots of Jeeping opportunity!
It's hotter in OK and MO than here, right now.
-----= 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! =-----
"Richard Harris" <SHARRIS11@san.rr.com> wrote:
> I'm from UK, Pennsyvania, Florida, Virginia, Illinois, Commiefornia twice,
> Germany....
> What does that make me?
> Lost?
Well, you ain't a yankee then.
> PS been to Texas.....I like the laws, the folks are real great (mostly) but
> the land....flat hot and barren... It's not for this sailor...
Mountains in West Texas, desert in Southwest, Piney woods, sandy
beaches, the lush valley of McAllen, swamps near Houston, the Texas hill
country an the rolling hills of LaGrange, I dunno about flat or barren.
Sounds like a blanket statement.
Lots and lots of Jeeping opportunity!
It's hotter in OK and MO than here, right now.
-----= 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! =-----
#208
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Jeep Booby Traps Help
twaldron,
There is a very special, very small word in § 9.42 (2)A that splatters your
BS...read the statute carefully please, and hopefully it will explain to you
how I, or any other Texan who can lawfully own or possess a firearm, can
justifiably use deadly force without a personal threat. The word "OR" at the
end of paragraph (A) does NOT mean that the conditions of paragraph (B), the
one you cite as requiring threat of bodily harm to justify use of deadly
force, must be met. "OR" does not mean the same thing as "AND".The word "OR"
means that EITHER condition is a justification for the use of deadly force.
If I use deadly force to prevent the specific crimes listed in paragraph
(A), my life does not have to be endangered. Look at how it's written, that
one little word was result of hours, maybe weeks, perhaps ever years of
debate in Austin.
§ 9.42. Deadly Force to Protect Property
<snip article (1)>
(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
I'm pretty sure you will counter with the "during the day" stipulation that
you have added since you said,"Which state allows using deadly force when
life isn't endangered???" and several of us replied with Texas. So far,
none of us has said you can use deadly force in Texas during the daylight
hours to stop a thief. Perhaps you added the daylight hours stipulation
after you realized that you were wrong...maybe you read the law, but missed
that little two-letter word the first time through. I don't know. I do know
that you originally posted ONLY the words,"Which state allows using deadly
force when life isn't endangered???" and several have answered and provided
copies of statute to back it up. I also provided a link to the Texas Penal
Code (in my reply to your "BS:Next" post) if you don't believe it's an
exact, current copy. I, and others, have given you an answer to your
original question. You can't backpedal, sir, your posts are all here, and
you originally didn't say anything about daylight as a condition. I'm pretty
much done debating this issue. Now...Want to debate whether or not a Texan
can use lethal force when life isn't endangered during the DAYLIGHT???
So,again...BS yourself!
"twaldron" <twaldron@sbcOBVIOUSglobal.net> wrote in message
news:1BI2b.57$1h2.32@newssvr22.news.prodigy.com...
> I don't see anything in there that specifically states that the use of
> deadly force is permittable against another person where no personal
> threat is present. In fact, it specifically state that:
>
> (B) the use of force other than deadly force to protect or recover the
> land or property would expose the actor or another to a substantial risk
> of death or serious bodily injury.
>
> So, the BS stands.
>
> Russ B wrote:
>
> > "twaldron" <twaldron@sbcOBVIOUSglobal.net> wrote in message
> > news:%Vu2b.3550$UW7.1897@newssvr22.news.prodigy.co m...
> >
> >>BS. Next?
> >>
> >
> >
> > BS yourself! Here is a snippet straight off of the Texas Penal Code,
> > available for your perusal at
> > http://www.capitol.state.tx.us/statu...tml#pe010.9.32
> >
> > 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.
> >
> >
>
> --
> __________________________________________________ _________
> 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)
> __________________________________________________ _________
>
There is a very special, very small word in § 9.42 (2)A that splatters your
BS...read the statute carefully please, and hopefully it will explain to you
how I, or any other Texan who can lawfully own or possess a firearm, can
justifiably use deadly force without a personal threat. The word "OR" at the
end of paragraph (A) does NOT mean that the conditions of paragraph (B), the
one you cite as requiring threat of bodily harm to justify use of deadly
force, must be met. "OR" does not mean the same thing as "AND".The word "OR"
means that EITHER condition is a justification for the use of deadly force.
If I use deadly force to prevent the specific crimes listed in paragraph
(A), my life does not have to be endangered. Look at how it's written, that
one little word was result of hours, maybe weeks, perhaps ever years of
debate in Austin.
§ 9.42. Deadly Force to Protect Property
<snip article (1)>
(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
I'm pretty sure you will counter with the "during the day" stipulation that
you have added since you said,"Which state allows using deadly force when
life isn't endangered???" and several of us replied with Texas. So far,
none of us has said you can use deadly force in Texas during the daylight
hours to stop a thief. Perhaps you added the daylight hours stipulation
after you realized that you were wrong...maybe you read the law, but missed
that little two-letter word the first time through. I don't know. I do know
that you originally posted ONLY the words,"Which state allows using deadly
force when life isn't endangered???" and several have answered and provided
copies of statute to back it up. I also provided a link to the Texas Penal
Code (in my reply to your "BS:Next" post) if you don't believe it's an
exact, current copy. I, and others, have given you an answer to your
original question. You can't backpedal, sir, your posts are all here, and
you originally didn't say anything about daylight as a condition. I'm pretty
much done debating this issue. Now...Want to debate whether or not a Texan
can use lethal force when life isn't endangered during the DAYLIGHT???
So,again...BS yourself!
"twaldron" <twaldron@sbcOBVIOUSglobal.net> wrote in message
news:1BI2b.57$1h2.32@newssvr22.news.prodigy.com...
> I don't see anything in there that specifically states that the use of
> deadly force is permittable against another person where no personal
> threat is present. In fact, it specifically state that:
>
> (B) the use of force other than deadly force to protect or recover the
> land or property would expose the actor or another to a substantial risk
> of death or serious bodily injury.
>
> So, the BS stands.
>
> Russ B wrote:
>
> > "twaldron" <twaldron@sbcOBVIOUSglobal.net> wrote in message
> > news:%Vu2b.3550$UW7.1897@newssvr22.news.prodigy.co m...
> >
> >>BS. Next?
> >>
> >
> >
> > BS yourself! Here is a snippet straight off of the Texas Penal Code,
> > available for your perusal at
> > http://www.capitol.state.tx.us/statu...tml#pe010.9.32
> >
> > 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.
> >
> >
>
> --
> __________________________________________________ _________
> 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)
> __________________________________________________ _________
>
#209
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Jeep Booby Traps Help
twaldron,
There is a very special, very small word in § 9.42 (2)A that splatters your
BS...read the statute carefully please, and hopefully it will explain to you
how I, or any other Texan who can lawfully own or possess a firearm, can
justifiably use deadly force without a personal threat. The word "OR" at the
end of paragraph (A) does NOT mean that the conditions of paragraph (B), the
one you cite as requiring threat of bodily harm to justify use of deadly
force, must be met. "OR" does not mean the same thing as "AND".The word "OR"
means that EITHER condition is a justification for the use of deadly force.
If I use deadly force to prevent the specific crimes listed in paragraph
(A), my life does not have to be endangered. Look at how it's written, that
one little word was result of hours, maybe weeks, perhaps ever years of
debate in Austin.
§ 9.42. Deadly Force to Protect Property
<snip article (1)>
(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
I'm pretty sure you will counter with the "during the day" stipulation that
you have added since you said,"Which state allows using deadly force when
life isn't endangered???" and several of us replied with Texas. So far,
none of us has said you can use deadly force in Texas during the daylight
hours to stop a thief. Perhaps you added the daylight hours stipulation
after you realized that you were wrong...maybe you read the law, but missed
that little two-letter word the first time through. I don't know. I do know
that you originally posted ONLY the words,"Which state allows using deadly
force when life isn't endangered???" and several have answered and provided
copies of statute to back it up. I also provided a link to the Texas Penal
Code (in my reply to your "BS:Next" post) if you don't believe it's an
exact, current copy. I, and others, have given you an answer to your
original question. You can't backpedal, sir, your posts are all here, and
you originally didn't say anything about daylight as a condition. I'm pretty
much done debating this issue. Now...Want to debate whether or not a Texan
can use lethal force when life isn't endangered during the DAYLIGHT???
So,again...BS yourself!
"twaldron" <twaldron@sbcOBVIOUSglobal.net> wrote in message
news:1BI2b.57$1h2.32@newssvr22.news.prodigy.com...
> I don't see anything in there that specifically states that the use of
> deadly force is permittable against another person where no personal
> threat is present. In fact, it specifically state that:
>
> (B) the use of force other than deadly force to protect or recover the
> land or property would expose the actor or another to a substantial risk
> of death or serious bodily injury.
>
> So, the BS stands.
>
> Russ B wrote:
>
> > "twaldron" <twaldron@sbcOBVIOUSglobal.net> wrote in message
> > news:%Vu2b.3550$UW7.1897@newssvr22.news.prodigy.co m...
> >
> >>BS. Next?
> >>
> >
> >
> > BS yourself! Here is a snippet straight off of the Texas Penal Code,
> > available for your perusal at
> > http://www.capitol.state.tx.us/statu...tml#pe010.9.32
> >
> > 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.
> >
> >
>
> --
> __________________________________________________ _________
> 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)
> __________________________________________________ _________
>
There is a very special, very small word in § 9.42 (2)A that splatters your
BS...read the statute carefully please, and hopefully it will explain to you
how I, or any other Texan who can lawfully own or possess a firearm, can
justifiably use deadly force without a personal threat. The word "OR" at the
end of paragraph (A) does NOT mean that the conditions of paragraph (B), the
one you cite as requiring threat of bodily harm to justify use of deadly
force, must be met. "OR" does not mean the same thing as "AND".The word "OR"
means that EITHER condition is a justification for the use of deadly force.
If I use deadly force to prevent the specific crimes listed in paragraph
(A), my life does not have to be endangered. Look at how it's written, that
one little word was result of hours, maybe weeks, perhaps ever years of
debate in Austin.
§ 9.42. Deadly Force to Protect Property
<snip article (1)>
(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
I'm pretty sure you will counter with the "during the day" stipulation that
you have added since you said,"Which state allows using deadly force when
life isn't endangered???" and several of us replied with Texas. So far,
none of us has said you can use deadly force in Texas during the daylight
hours to stop a thief. Perhaps you added the daylight hours stipulation
after you realized that you were wrong...maybe you read the law, but missed
that little two-letter word the first time through. I don't know. I do know
that you originally posted ONLY the words,"Which state allows using deadly
force when life isn't endangered???" and several have answered and provided
copies of statute to back it up. I also provided a link to the Texas Penal
Code (in my reply to your "BS:Next" post) if you don't believe it's an
exact, current copy. I, and others, have given you an answer to your
original question. You can't backpedal, sir, your posts are all here, and
you originally didn't say anything about daylight as a condition. I'm pretty
much done debating this issue. Now...Want to debate whether or not a Texan
can use lethal force when life isn't endangered during the DAYLIGHT???
So,again...BS yourself!
"twaldron" <twaldron@sbcOBVIOUSglobal.net> wrote in message
news:1BI2b.57$1h2.32@newssvr22.news.prodigy.com...
> I don't see anything in there that specifically states that the use of
> deadly force is permittable against another person where no personal
> threat is present. In fact, it specifically state that:
>
> (B) the use of force other than deadly force to protect or recover the
> land or property would expose the actor or another to a substantial risk
> of death or serious bodily injury.
>
> So, the BS stands.
>
> Russ B wrote:
>
> > "twaldron" <twaldron@sbcOBVIOUSglobal.net> wrote in message
> > news:%Vu2b.3550$UW7.1897@newssvr22.news.prodigy.co m...
> >
> >>BS. Next?
> >>
> >
> >
> > BS yourself! Here is a snippet straight off of the Texas Penal Code,
> > available for your perusal at
> > http://www.capitol.state.tx.us/statu...tml#pe010.9.32
> >
> > 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.
> >
> >
>
> --
> __________________________________________________ _________
> 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)
> __________________________________________________ _________
>
#210
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Jeep Booby Traps Help
Did some training at Corpus this year around spring break (we do plan
training trips around events if possible). Seems like a niceenough place,
except for the mosquitoes, and the fog.
The mosquitoes ate us alive while we were in the field on evasion, and the
fog was so thick, I couldn't see the bow of an 11 meter boat from the middle
of the boat.
"Jeepers" <moomesa@INVALIDfnbnet.net> wrote in message
news:moomesa-4AE0D6.22134226082003@corp.newsfeeds.com...
> In article <_gV2b.4804$IJ6.478840@twister.socal.rr.com>,
> "Richard Harris" <SHARRIS11@san.rr.com> wrote:
>
> > I'm from UK, Pennsyvania, Florida, Virginia, Illinois, Commiefornia
twice,
> > Germany....
> > What does that make me?
> > Lost?
>
> Well, you ain't a yankee then.
>
> > PS been to Texas.....I like the laws, the folks are real great (mostly)
but
> > the land....flat hot and barren... It's not for this sailor...
>
> Mountains in West Texas, desert in Southwest, Piney woods, sandy
> beaches, the lush valley of McAllen, swamps near Houston, the Texas hill
> country an the rolling hills of LaGrange, I dunno about flat or barren.
> Sounds like a blanket statement.
>
> Lots and lots of Jeeping opportunity!
>
> It's hotter in OK and MO than here, right now.
>
>
> -----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
> http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
> -----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----
training trips around events if possible). Seems like a niceenough place,
except for the mosquitoes, and the fog.
The mosquitoes ate us alive while we were in the field on evasion, and the
fog was so thick, I couldn't see the bow of an 11 meter boat from the middle
of the boat.
"Jeepers" <moomesa@INVALIDfnbnet.net> wrote in message
news:moomesa-4AE0D6.22134226082003@corp.newsfeeds.com...
> In article <_gV2b.4804$IJ6.478840@twister.socal.rr.com>,
> "Richard Harris" <SHARRIS11@san.rr.com> wrote:
>
> > I'm from UK, Pennsyvania, Florida, Virginia, Illinois, Commiefornia
twice,
> > Germany....
> > What does that make me?
> > Lost?
>
> Well, you ain't a yankee then.
>
> > PS been to Texas.....I like the laws, the folks are real great (mostly)
but
> > the land....flat hot and barren... It's not for this sailor...
>
> Mountains in West Texas, desert in Southwest, Piney woods, sandy
> beaches, the lush valley of McAllen, swamps near Houston, the Texas hill
> country an the rolling hills of LaGrange, I dunno about flat or barren.
> Sounds like a blanket statement.
>
> Lots and lots of Jeeping opportunity!
>
> It's hotter in OK and MO than here, right now.
>
>
> -----= 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! =-----