http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news...fter-getting-stuck-california-chimney-n470751
dead burglars don't sue homeowners, either...
dead burglars don't sue homeowners, either...
California screamin...
- Thread starter Diydave
- Start date
North Idaho Wolfman
Moderator
Staff member
Lifetime Member
Equipment
L3450DT-GST, Woods FEL, B7100 HSD, FEL, 60" SB, 743 Bobcat with V2203, and more
Sad part is their families do!
People will twist things around just t make a buck, (Their made up story) "Our poor little honest Johnny was just over inspecting Mr. Jones chimney when he slipped and fell in, then that mean old Mr. Jones killed him to cover it up"
CaveCreekRay
Well-known member
Lifetime Member
Equipment
L3800 HST, KingKutter box scraper, KingKutter 66" rake, County Pride Subsoiler
That is but another reason I live in Arizona...
We passed Prop 102 a few years back which removes any possibility of civil suit by a person committing a felony, or any member of their surviving family. That is the way it ought to be in every state but, the people give in to the powerful lawyer entities like the ACLU. They are trying hard to get our law repealed but so far, the evidence of any misuse or alleged "legal racism" is pretty hard to show.
MESSAGE TO SURVIVORS OF ARIZONA CRIMINALS:If your deceased dumbass sperm donor decides to get killed trying to break in my home to kill me, then rob me, and rape my wife, don't expect a nickle in return for his lack of foresight after receiving two to the chest and one to the head.
Questions? It can be that way in your state too if you awaken the sleeping sheeple.
We passed Prop 102 a few years back which removes any possibility of civil suit by a person committing a felony, or any member of their surviving family. That is the way it ought to be in every state but, the people give in to the powerful lawyer entities like the ACLU. They are trying hard to get our law repealed but so far, the evidence of any misuse or alleged "legal racism" is pretty hard to show.
MESSAGE TO SURVIVORS OF ARIZONA CRIMINALS:If your deceased dumbass sperm donor decides to get killed trying to break in my home to kill me, then rob me, and rape my wife, don't expect a nickle in return for his lack of foresight after receiving two to the chest and one to the head.
Questions? It can be that way in your state too if you awaken the sleeping sheeple.
85Hokie
Moderator
Staff member
Lifetime Member
Equipment
BX-25D ,PTB. Under Armor, '90&'92-B7100HST's, '06 BX1850 FEL
CCR,
sounds like a great plan......
Use to be law in here in VA (hell might be still) that IF AN INTRUDER enters your house to "do bodily harm" - you could shot them.......IF they were IN YOUR house........but not in the yard running AWAY!
he one case - not sure if true - where a home owner "shot and killed the intruder........but dragged the perp into the house....."
we also ought to implement into the court system what England does.....
if a frivolous lawsuit is brought against a "person" and the Accuser loses......they PAY the entire court cost and the defending lawyers fees too!
I think that a few states have done the same here!
In CA :
"Some states permit the prevailing party to collect attorneys’ fees and costs if the other party filed a lawsuit that he knew was baseless and frivolous. California permits such results by providing that the winner can collect these fees if it wasted the court’s resources"
who da thunk it ......
Poor fella. All he's seen his whole life is Santa coming down the chimney leaving gifts.
So, if Santa can come down and leave things, why can't I go down and get things, " the bafoon thinks.
He sure wasn't a masonry contractor, or knew one.
How is he going to get past the damper, even if it's open?
Coroners cause of death: Brain cells not fully developed, or depleted by chemical infusion
So, if Santa can come down and leave things, why can't I go down and get things, " the bafoon thinks.
He sure wasn't a masonry contractor, or knew one.
How is he going to get past the damper, even if it's open?
Coroners cause of death: Brain cells not fully developed, or depleted by chemical infusion
I had a friend, now long gone, who was barely 5ft tall, maybe 90 lbs, and who slept with a pistol under her mattress after her husband died. She told me that the sheriff told her that if anyone tried to break in and she shot them, to make sure he was inside the house before she called the police. They make little old ladies tough in Michigan...
Well California will pass a law stating that you have to check your chimney for burglars before starting a fire! Proposition F451!
Ray
Ray
CaveCreekRay
Well-known member
Lifetime Member
Equipment
L3800 HST, KingKutter box scraper, KingKutter 66" rake, County Pride Subsoiler
SF,
That was one of the best parts of teaching firearms use in a gun-friendly state. Half of our students were female. One lady had been threatened by her ex for years and she no-showed three classes before finally attending at her FBI-agent brothers insistence. She was scared to death of guns and figured she couldn't handle the class. Like most of our students, it was like the veil of ignorance was lifted and they realized you didn't have to be the Rock or Arnold to operate a firearm safely and accurately. She absolutely blossomed after this class and asked that we use her picture on our posters. Once her ex found out she was armed and competent, she never heard from him again.
This was the case in probably 80-90% of our students. After the spate of church shootings, a local pastor's wife arms up for each Sunday and sits in the front row to cover her husband, just in case. She is very good with her Glock 9mm. It was a blast giving women the tools to defend themselves.
The Castle Doctrine is the law in most states. One exception is CA where my brother lives. By law, if he hears a burglar coming up his stairs, he is REQUIRED to FLEE by any means necessary before using deadly force. The local cops define that as to be any window that open onto a roof. So, in the dead of night, he and his 70 year-old wife are to climb out on a dark roof to avoid harming the criminal in their home. More Liberal lunacy fostered by the ACLU. Not in Arizona though. Once in your home, the intruder becomes a threat to be neutralized. And neither he nor his survivors can sue in civil court for damages afterwards. Done.
That was one of the best parts of teaching firearms use in a gun-friendly state. Half of our students were female. One lady had been threatened by her ex for years and she no-showed three classes before finally attending at her FBI-agent brothers insistence. She was scared to death of guns and figured she couldn't handle the class. Like most of our students, it was like the veil of ignorance was lifted and they realized you didn't have to be the Rock or Arnold to operate a firearm safely and accurately. She absolutely blossomed after this class and asked that we use her picture on our posters. Once her ex found out she was armed and competent, she never heard from him again.
This was the case in probably 80-90% of our students. After the spate of church shootings, a local pastor's wife arms up for each Sunday and sits in the front row to cover her husband, just in case. She is very good with her Glock 9mm. It was a blast giving women the tools to defend themselves.
The Castle Doctrine is the law in most states. One exception is CA where my brother lives. By law, if he hears a burglar coming up his stairs, he is REQUIRED to FLEE by any means necessary before using deadly force. The local cops define that as to be any window that open onto a roof. So, in the dead of night, he and his 70 year-old wife are to climb out on a dark roof to avoid harming the criminal in their home. More Liberal lunacy fostered by the ACLU. Not in Arizona though. Once in your home, the intruder becomes a threat to be neutralized. And neither he nor his survivors can sue in civil court for damages afterwards. Done.
Attachments
Not sure where that is coming from, I live in California and we too have the Castle Doctrine:
(From Wikipedia, that bastion of unquestionably factual knowledge
)California (Penal Code 198.5) "Any person using force intended or likely to cause death or great bodily injury within his or her residence shall be presumed to have held a reasonable fear of imminent peril of death or great bodily injury to self, family, or a member of the household when that force is used against another person, not a member of the family or household, who unlawfully and forcibly enters or has unlawfully and forcibly entered the residence and the person using the force knew or had reason to believe that an unlawful and forcible entry occurred."
So, justifiable homicide is in the eyes of the beholder as far as State Law goes. In gun friendly areas of the State, they'd look at the body, look around at your house, say "Good Shot" and haul off the corpse. In cities unfriendly to firearms, you'd have to prove a whole ton of crap or hope the DA is too swamped in actual cases to file against you.
What is true, is that OUTSIDE of your house, you are not entitled to defend your property (even your pet). You have to dial 911 and let whomever do whatever to your property and wait for the police to arrive. Now, I don't agree with this and would happily defend my property, especially my pets (as they are family to me) and let the DA *TRY* to convict me in front of jury. Stupid laws are usually shown to be just that and juries tend to not convict against stupid laws.
CaveCreekRay
Well-known member
Lifetime Member
Equipment
L3800 HST, KingKutter box scraper, KingKutter 66" rake, County Pride Subsoiler
Thanks for the update Shaun! My bro in Orange County has been feeding me bad info! I guess the distinction is CA is not a stand your ground state. That is where the dilemma is. The civil courts operate on a different set of rules and make it harder for those not avoiding conflict unless absolutely necessary. If the jury decides you could have escaped the danger by going out a window, they can hammer you while the criminal court sees you as defending yourself. Just like the dilemma of using +P ammo for self defense. Some states have determined this is "cruel" and a premeditated step. (roll eyes)
Criminal law operates under the "shadow of a doubt" rule. If there is any doubt whatsoever, you cannot be convicted and are free. Civil law operates under the premise of the "preponderance of the evidence." If the evidence suggests you could have escaped and saved the life of your intruder, and the jury goes along with it, you are toast. My brother and his elderly wife could make the case that escaping out a second floor window was risky but a younger guy and his wife might not be able to convince a jury this is valid. That is the dilemma posed by the lack of Stand Your Ground laws. AZ cut all the civil liabilities out with Prop 102. And that is why the ACLU hates it.
Softer Castle Laws
Not all states give citizens as much leeway in protecting their personal property. States like California allow citizens to protect their homes with deadly force if they feel that they or another person are in physical danger, but does not extend to theft, and it only protects residents in their home, and not in cars or at work.
AZ has similar rules about theft. No deadly force to defend property. But, once inside your home, they are assumed to be threatening because of our stand your ground laws. You can fire a warning shot IF they are trespassing on your property and are not leaving. However, the minute they turn around to leave, any shots fired are a felony. I always cringe when I hear reports about people firing at intruders as they flee. That is not legal in most states. Remember the elderly guy who shot at the robbers who invaded the video cafe? He was legal until they intruders left the premises. His last shot out the door was illegal. Fortunately, the DA let him go with a warning. Good thing he missed on that shot.
https://search.yahoo.com/yhs/search?p=Elderly+armed+citizen+at+internet+cafe&ei=UTF-8&hspart=mozilla&hsimp=yhs-003
Out In Orange County the new lady Sheriff cancelled all the carry permits a few years back and getting one is near impossible now. My bro is in real estate and could really use a weapon sitting at open houses.
Criminal law operates under the "shadow of a doubt" rule. If there is any doubt whatsoever, you cannot be convicted and are free. Civil law operates under the premise of the "preponderance of the evidence." If the evidence suggests you could have escaped and saved the life of your intruder, and the jury goes along with it, you are toast. My brother and his elderly wife could make the case that escaping out a second floor window was risky but a younger guy and his wife might not be able to convince a jury this is valid. That is the dilemma posed by the lack of Stand Your Ground laws. AZ cut all the civil liabilities out with Prop 102. And that is why the ACLU hates it.
Softer Castle Laws
Not all states give citizens as much leeway in protecting their personal property. States like California allow citizens to protect their homes with deadly force if they feel that they or another person are in physical danger, but does not extend to theft, and it only protects residents in their home, and not in cars or at work.
AZ has similar rules about theft. No deadly force to defend property. But, once inside your home, they are assumed to be threatening because of our stand your ground laws. You can fire a warning shot IF they are trespassing on your property and are not leaving. However, the minute they turn around to leave, any shots fired are a felony. I always cringe when I hear reports about people firing at intruders as they flee. That is not legal in most states. Remember the elderly guy who shot at the robbers who invaded the video cafe? He was legal until they intruders left the premises. His last shot out the door was illegal. Fortunately, the DA let him go with a warning. Good thing he missed on that shot.
https://search.yahoo.com/yhs/search?p=Elderly+armed+citizen+at+internet+cafe&ei=UTF-8&hspart=mozilla&hsimp=yhs-003
Out In Orange County the new lady Sheriff cancelled all the carry permits a few years back and getting one is near impossible now. My bro is in real estate and could really use a weapon sitting at open houses.
Last edited:
Lil Foot
Well-known member
Lifetime Member
Equipment
1979 B7100DT Gear, Nissan Hanix N150-2 Excavator
AZ law regarding the use deadly force, emphasis mine:
13-411. Justification; use of force in crime prevention; applicability
A. A person is justified in threatening or using both physical force and deadly physical force against another if and to the extent the person reasonably believes that physical force or deadly physical force is immediately necessary to prevent the other's commission of arson of an occupied structure under section 13-1704, burglary in the second or first degree under section 13-1507 or 13-1508, kidnapping under section 13-1304, manslaughter under section 13-1103, second or first degree murder under section 13-1104 or 13-1105, sexual conduct with a minor under section 13-1405, sexual assault under section 13-1406, child molestation under section 13-1410, armed robbery under section 13-1904 or aggravated assault under section 13-1204, subsection A, paragraphs 1 and 2.
B. There is no duty to retreat before threatening or using physical force or deadly physical force justified by subsection A of this section.
C. A person is presumed to be acting reasonably for the purposes of this section if the person is acting to prevent what the person reasonably believes is the imminent or actual commission of any of the offenses listed in subsection A of this section.
D. This section includes the use or threatened use of physical force or deadly physical force in a person's home, residence, place of business, land the person owns or leases, conveyance of any kind, or any other place in this state where a person has a right to be.
13-411. Justification; use of force in crime prevention; applicability
A. A person is justified in threatening or using both physical force and deadly physical force against another if and to the extent the person reasonably believes that physical force or deadly physical force is immediately necessary to prevent the other's commission of arson of an occupied structure under section 13-1704, burglary in the second or first degree under section 13-1507 or 13-1508, kidnapping under section 13-1304, manslaughter under section 13-1103, second or first degree murder under section 13-1104 or 13-1105, sexual conduct with a minor under section 13-1405, sexual assault under section 13-1406, child molestation under section 13-1410, armed robbery under section 13-1904 or aggravated assault under section 13-1204, subsection A, paragraphs 1 and 2.
B. There is no duty to retreat before threatening or using physical force or deadly physical force justified by subsection A of this section.
C. A person is presumed to be acting reasonably for the purposes of this section if the person is acting to prevent what the person reasonably believes is the imminent or actual commission of any of the offenses listed in subsection A of this section.
D. This section includes the use or threatened use of physical force or deadly physical force in a person's home, residence, place of business, land the person owns or leases, conveyance of any kind, or any other place in this state where a person has a right to be.
AZ and TX are quite similar in their statutes.
I know in TX you can actually defend your property with lethal force while on your property. Just walking on your property is not protected but if they try to steal or damage your property, yup, it's self-defense. I think you might have an issue if you took them out from 500 yards away with a high powered rifle though.
Pretty much if they are in range capable of injuring you, and you take them down on your property with a reason why they are a danger to you, it's all fine.
That's also some common sense. You can't just go around taking down people that go on your property.
However, here in CA it's taken to an extreme. They'd expect me to stand by and watch some thugs or a psychopathic kid beat up my dog while I walk her. Unjust laws are not valid, and my point was that even juries see that. You'd never be convicted if you fought back to save your dog. So it just shows how stupid we are in California, but we aren't to the level of stupidity yet that we can't defend ourselves in our own homes... we are close to that, but not there just yet. The Castle Doctrine here in CA is challenged almost daily.
I know in TX you can actually defend your property with lethal force while on your property. Just walking on your property is not protected but if they try to steal or damage your property, yup, it's self-defense. I think you might have an issue if you took them out from 500 yards away with a high powered rifle though.
Pretty much if they are in range capable of injuring you, and you take them down on your property with a reason why they are a danger to you, it's all fine.
That's also some common sense. You can't just go around taking down people that go on your property.
However, here in CA it's taken to an extreme. They'd expect me to stand by and watch some thugs or a psychopathic kid beat up my dog while I walk her. Unjust laws are not valid, and my point was that even juries see that. You'd never be convicted if you fought back to save your dog. So it just shows how stupid we are in California, but we aren't to the level of stupidity yet that we can't defend ourselves in our own homes... we are close to that, but not there just yet. The Castle Doctrine here in CA is challenged almost daily.
CaveCreekRay
Well-known member
Lifetime Member
Equipment
L3800 HST, KingKutter box scraper, KingKutter 66" rake, County Pride Subsoiler
Once I had an elderly Jewish couple come out. The wife (looking about 58) was just short of 70 and had never touched a gun. She was understandably nervous. After 70-odd rounds with a light revolver, she was blowing out the center of the target, putting her hubby to shame. Her smile was amazing.
She walked off the range a much more confident woman.
Yup. What a hoot.
She walked off the range a much more confident woman.
Yup. What a hoot.