motor

pagani · 09-11-2009, 08:14 PM

Very strange bust

YouTube

p1

YouTube

p2
Police bust at Davidsfarm explanation

YouTube

RC45 · 09-11-2009, 09:20 PM

Without a warrant those folks would have been greated with semi-automatic rifle fire ahd that been my land...

"bylaw" this.. *bang* *bang* *bang*

Mattk · 09-12-2009, 12:55 AM

Oh, have a cry, David. Sucks, but no need to make a freaking Youtube video. It's not like anything particularly bad happened. Anything they took and any information gained from the search would've been inadmissible as evidence.

RC45 · 09-12-2009, 03:15 AM

Originally Posted by Mattk

Oh, have a cry, David. Sucks, but no need to make a freaking Youtube video. It's not like anything particularly bad happened. Anything they took and any information gained from the search would've been inadmissible as evidence.

That is not the point - its the very act itself. Trespassing out here will get you shot dead. I would say that would be particularly bad, especially for trespasser

pagani · 09-12-2009, 07:06 AM

Originally Posted by RC45

That is not the point - its the very act itself. Trespassing out here will get you shot dead. I would say that would be particularly bad, especially for trespasser

If that was texas he could have shot the pigs

Mattk · 09-12-2009, 09:28 AM

^And it would be up to you to show they were trespassing. Probably not advisable. In any case, killing several uniformed police officers just because they didn't have a warrant makes you look pretty dodgy. It's not like they were whipping their guns out in preparation for some American-style police brutality, or out to make any illegal arrest. Even in Texas, you or your property needs to be under some threat before you can start using force, and it would probably not involve slaughter unless you were in danger of death yourself.

http://www.capitol.state.tx.us/tlodo...l/SB00378F.htm

RC45 · 09-12-2009, 03:10 PM

Originally Posted by Mattk

^And it would be up to you to show they were trespassing. Probably not advisable. In any case, killing several uniformed police officers just because they didn't have a warrant makes you look pretty dodgy. It's not like they were whipping their guns out in preparation for some American-style police brutality, or out to make any illegal arrest. Even in Texas, you or your property needs to be under some threat before you can start using force, and it would probably not involve slaughter unless you were in danger of death yourself.

http://www.capitol.state.tx.us/tlodo...l/SB00378F.htm

Come onto my front porch uninvited and enter without a warrant, cross the threshhold and you will be met with buckshot to the face - whether you are wearing a uniform or not.

AN ACT

relating to the use of force or deadly force in defense of a person.
BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF TEXAS:
SECTION 1. Section 9.01, Penal Code, is amended by adding Subdivisions (4) and (5) to read as follows:
(4) “Habitation” has the meaning assigned by Section 30.01.
(5) “Vehicle” has the meaning assigned by Section 30.01.
SECTION 2. Section 9.31, Penal Code, is amended by amending Subsection (a) and adding Subsections (e) and (f) to read as follows:
(a) Except as provided in Subsection (b), a person is justified in using force against another when and to the degree the actor [he] reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to protect the actor [himself] against the other’s use or attempted use of unlawful force. The actor’s belief that the force was immediately necessary as described by this subsection is presumed to be reasonable if the actor:
(1) knew or had reason to believe that the person against whom the force was used:
(A) unlawfully and with force entered, or was attempting to enter unlawfully and with force, the actor’s occupied habitation, vehicle, or place of business or employment;
(B) unlawfully and with force removed, or was attempting to remove unlawfully and with force, the actor from the actor’s habitation, vehicle, or place of business or employment; or
(C) was committing or attempting to commit aggravated kidnapping, murder, sexual assault, aggravated sexual assault, robbery, or aggravated robbery;
(2) did not provoke the person against whom the force was used; and
(3) was not otherwise engaged in criminal activity, other than a Class C misdemeanor that is a violation of a law or ordinance regulating traffic at the time the force was used.
(e) A person who has a right to be present at the location where the force is used, who has not provoked the person against whom the force is used, and who is not engaged in criminal activity at the time the force is used is not required to retreat before using force as described by this section.
(f) For purposes of Subsection (a), in determining whether an actor described by Subsection (e) reasonably believed that the use of force was necessary, a finder of fact may not consider whether the actor failed to retreat.
SECTION 3. Section 9.32, Penal Code, is amended to read as follows:
Sec. 9.32. DEADLY FORCE IN DEFENSE OF PERSON. (a) A person is justified in using deadly force against another:
(1) if the actor [he] would be justified in using force against the other under Section 9.31; and
(2) [if a reasonable person in the actor's situation would not have retreated; and
[(3)] when and to the degree the actor [he] reasonably believes the deadly force is immediately necessary:
(A) to protect the actor [himself] against the other’s use or attempted use of unlawful deadly force; or
(B) to prevent the other’s imminent commission of aggravated kidnapping, murder, sexual assault, aggravated sexual assault, robbery, or aggravated robbery.
(b) The actor’s belief under Subsection (a)(2) that the deadly force was immediately necessary as described by that subdivision is presumed to be reasonable if the actor:
(1) knew or had reason to believe that the person against whom the deadly force was used:
(A) unlawfully and with force entered, or was attempting to enter unlawfully and with force, the actor’s occupied habitation, vehicle, or place of business or employment;
(B) unlawfully and with force removed, or was attempting to remove unlawfully and with force, the actor from the actor’s habitation, vehicle, or place of business or employment; or
(C) was committing or attempting to commit an offense described by Subsection (a)(2)(B);
(2) did not provoke the person against whom the force was used; and
(3) was not otherwise engaged in criminal activity, other than a Class C misdemeanor that is a violation of a law or ordinance regulating traffic at the time the force was used [requirement imposed by Subsection (a)(2) does not apply to an actor who uses force against a person who is at the time of the use of force committing an offense of unlawful entry in the habitation of the actor].
(c) A person who has a right to be present at the location where the deadly force is used, who has not provoked the person against whom the deadly force is used, and who is not engaged in criminal activity at the time the deadly force is used is not required to retreat before using deadly force as described by this section.
(d) For purposes of Subsection (a)(2), in determining whether an actor described by Subsection (c) reasonably believed that the use of deadly force was necessary, a finder of fact may not consider whether the actor failed to retreat.
SECTION 4. Section 83.001, Civil Practice and Remedies Code, is amended to read as follows:
Sec. 83.001. CIVIL IMMUNITY [AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE]. A [It is an affirmative defense to a civil action for damages for personal injury or death that the] defendant who uses force or[, at the time the cause of action arose, was justified in using] deadly force that is justified under Chapter 9 [Section 9.32], Penal Code, is immune from civil liability for personal injury or death that results from the defendant’s [against a person who at the time of the] use of force or deadly force, as applicable [was committing an offense of unlawful entry in the habitation of the defendant].
SECTION 5. (a) Sections 9.31 and 9.32, Penal Code, as amended by this Act, apply only to an offense committed on or after the effective date of this Act. An offense committed before the effective date of this Act is covered by the law in effect when the offense was committed, and the former law is continued in effect for this purpose. For the purposes of this subsection, an offense is committed before the effective date of this Act if any element of the offense occurs before the effective date.
(b) Section 83.001, Civil Practice and Remedies Code, as amended by this Act, applies only to a cause of action that accrues on or after the effective date of this Act. An action that accrued before the effective date of this Act is governed by the law in effect at the time the action accrued, and that law is continued in effect for that purpose.
SECTION 6. This Act takes effect September 1, 2007.

Mattk · 09-12-2009, 05:02 PM

(a) A person is justified in using deadly force against another:
(1) if the actor [he] would be justified in using force against the other under Section 9.31; and
(2) [if a reasonable person in the actor's situation would not have retreated; and
[(3)] when and to the degree the actor [he] reasonably believes the deadly force is immediately necessary:
(A) to protect the actor [himself] against the other’s use or attempted use of unlawful deadly force; or
(B) to prevent the other’s imminent commission of aggravated kidnapping, murder, sexual assault, aggravated sexual assault, robbery, or aggravated robbery.
(b) The actor’s belief under Subsection (a)(2) that the deadly force was immediately necessary as described by that subdivision is presumed to be reasonable if the actor:
(1) knew or had reason to believe that the person against whom the deadly force was used:
(A) unlawfully and with force entered, or was attempting to enter unlawfully and with force, the actor’s occupied habitation, vehicle, or place of business or employment;
(B) unlawfully and with force removed, or was attempting to remove unlawfully and with force, the actor from the actor’s habitation, vehicle, or place of business or employment; or
(C) was committing or attempting to commit an offense described by Subsection (a)(2)(B);
(2) did not provoke the person against whom the force was used; and
(3) was not otherwise engaged in criminal activity, other than a Class C misdemeanor that is a violation of a law or ordinance regulating traffic at the time the force was used [requirement imposed by Subsection (a)(2) does not apply to an actor who uses force against a person who is at the time of the use of force committing an offense of unlawful entry in the habitation of the actor].

Read what came before. You can't simply shoot anybody who simply wanders onto your front lawn. Stepping onto someone's porch by itself is not even trespass. Not that the law relates only to defence. Your home may be your castle, but it isn't your personal free-fire zone.

SHIZL · 09-12-2009, 06:32 PM

SEC. 213. AUTHORITY FOR DELAYING NOTICE OF THE EXECUTION OF A WARRANT.

Section 3103a of title 18, United States Code, is amended--

(1) by inserting `(a) IN GENERAL- ' before `In addition'; and

(2) by adding at the end the following:

`(b) DELAY- With respect to the issuance of any warrant or court order under this section, or any other rule of law, to search for and seize any property or material that constitutes evidence of a criminal offense in violation of the laws of the United States, any notice required, or that may be required, to be given may be delayed if--

`(1) the court finds reasonable cause to believe that providing immediate notification of the execution of the warrant may have an adverse result (as defined in section 2705);

`(2) the warrant prohibits the seizure of any tangible property, any wire or electronic communication (as defined in section 2510), or, except as expressly provided in chapter 121, any stored wire or electronic information, except where the court finds reasonable necessity for the seizure; and

`(3) the warrant provides for the giving of such notice within a reasonable period of its execution, which period may thereafter be extended by the court for good cause shown.'.

RC45 · 09-12-2009, 07:43 PM

Originally Posted by Mattk

Read what came before. You can't simply shoot anybody who simply wanders onto your front lawn. Stepping onto someone's porch by itself is not even trespass. Not that the law relates only to defence. Your home may be your castle, but it isn't your personal free-fire zone.

Actually, you can "simply shoot" anybody that wanders onto your front lawn - really , you can. The important thing would be to kill the person - as dead men tell no lies.

If you are not welcome and you are a threat to me (my interpretation of threat) I can and will shoot you and will be justified and protected in my actions.

I know it is hard for your liberal kumbaya mind to comprehend self-preservation, but it is real and protected activity and does wonders to reduce crime.

In fact, if you so much as put your arm through my car window your face will be introduced to hollow point slugs at 2300fps... as I am legally entitled to be in that space, it is my domain and castle, you are unwelcome and trespassing and therefore a threat and may, I mean, will be neutralized.

Aren't guns wonderful to have around

tforth · 09-12-2009, 11:17 PM

Originally Posted by RC45

...as I am legally entitled to be in that space, it is my domain and castle, you are unwelcome and trespassing and therefore a threat...

So, does that mean if you choose to drive your vette through a bank window, you can remain in the 'home-free' zone as long as you remain in the confines of your 'own' vehicle. I guess you would legally be able to shoot any officer who dared invade your space, when they would attempt to arrest you as well then, right

Or is a space (car) within another space (bank) somehow different?

10000rpmlover · 09-12-2009, 11:27 PM

some people here oh my... what is so difficult to grasp? why is it so hard to understand that no matter who you are tresspassing will get you shot? even if you are a cop, without a warrant you cannot wander into someone's property unless you wanna tempt fate, I don't even live in texas (yet) and I understand this perfectly, I have 2 daughters, and I believe anyone breaking in has bad intentions and will more thasn likely pop a couple desert eagle slugs into them

Mattk · 09-13-2009, 02:03 AM

There are many exceptions to trespass. For instance, you can go onto other people's yards to pick up runaway balls, dogs etc. I doubt any local politicians get shot during their door-knocking rounds. Simply walking onto someone's front yard is not threatening unless they are carrying implements or weapons. Your belief of threat has to be reasonable. It is an objective-subjective test. If you saw a bored police officer approaching your door, ordinary people would not immediately apprehend a bad dose of police brutality and start reaching for their guns, and if you did, you would be being unreasonable. I will concede that in the case of David, this was not the case, but uniformed police officers tend not to engage in indiscriminate slaughter of the general populace.

In the case of a break in, you can definitely get away with killing people. However, why kill if you don't have to? Most burglars aren't killers. They just want to steal electronic goods to hock so they can buy drugs. If the going gets tough, they go somewhere else. If the police start taking all your stuff illegally, it is not going to kill you. You'll get the stuff back after they realise they fucked up and can't use it. If the police want to arrest you, just cop it or they will definitely engage in some police brutality. There is no point causing controversy, because even if you are justified in killing someone, it is up to you to prove it.

I fully understand the principle of self-preservation. It is a life-saving principle, where you put yourself out of harm first before attempting to rescue others. It has nothing to do with pre-emptive killing.

RC45 · 09-13-2009, 02:29 AM

Originally Posted by tforth

So, does that mean if you choose to drive your vette through a bank window, you can remain in the 'home-free' zone as long as you remain in the confines of your 'own' vehicle. I guess you would legally be able to shoot any officer who dared invade your space, when they would attempt to arrest you as well then, right

Or is a space (car) within another space (bank) somehow different?

Pointless example - driving your car into a bank on purpose is clearly commiting a crime, so the castle doctrine no longer applies.

Next?

RC45 · 09-13-2009, 02:52 AM

Originally Posted by Mattk

There are many exceptions to trespass. For instance, you can go onto other people's yards to pick up runaway balls, dogs etc.

No you can't "just go into someones yard" - you do so at your own risk.

Those "No Trespassing" signs you see people put up are ther eof ra reason. Actually, anyone foolish enough to jump my fence to retrieve their ball will be face to face with 90lbs of German Shephard cross Rhodesian Ridgeback and most likely shit themselves before the dog uses his teeth fo rthei rintended purpose.

And if he doesnt like the taste and I still feel threatened I have a Romanian wench to help me out.

Originally Posted by Mattk

I doubt any local politicians get shot during their door-knocking rounds.

Depends on the party and the neighbourhood - there are politcians whom no damn well what doors to avoid.

Originally Posted by Mattk

Simply walking onto someone's front yard is not threatening unless they are carrying implements or weapons.

So according to the fists of a powerful man are not weapons? If I don't like the way you look, and you come to my door - you must be prepared to be greated how ever I see fit - again, its my home, not yours

Originally Posted by Mattk

Your belief of threat has to be reasonable. It is an objective-subjective test. If you saw a bored police officer approaching your door, ordinary people would not immediately apprehend a bad dose of police brutality and start reaching for their guns, and if you did, you would be being unreasonable.

No it would not be unreasonable, which is why a bored cop wouldnt just walk up to a door looking to stir up trouble, he would be doing so because he had a reason to, and in that case if his reason was law enforcement, he would be anticipating resistance and quite ready for what ever was hiding behind the door.

Originally Posted by Mattk

I will concede that in the case of David, this was not the case, but uniformed police officers tend not to engage in indiscriminate slaughter of the general populace.

Doesnt matter - those cops had no legal grounds for being on his property - all they had to do was have brought a warrant with themselves to deflate the situation and be 100% in the right and clear - bu tthey knew full well their raid of his property was uncalled for and illegal. Had he been up to no good on his property I would be hopign the cops would go in guns blazing and shoot his arse ig he so much as blicked wrong - but they had no business being there.

Originally Posted by Mattk

In the case of a break in, you can definitely get away with killing people. However, why kill if you don't have to? Most burglars aren't killers. They just want to steal electronic goods to hock so they can buy drugs.

So? Why should I not shoot the guy in the face then? He is stealing my property and invading my house - he shouldnt be there - period.

Originally Posted by Mattk

If the going gets tough, they go somewhere else.

You have not been exposed to many drug addicts commiting crimes have you? If the goig gets tuff, they kill people.

Originally Posted by Mattk

If the police start taking all your stuff illegally, it is not going to kill you.

No, but it just might kill them.

Originally Posted by Mattk

You'll get the stuff back after they realise they fucked up and can't use it. If the police want to arrest you, just cop it or they will definitely engage in some police brutality. There is no point causing controversy, because even if you are justified in killing someone, it is up to you to prove it.

You break in, you get killed - end of story. Nothing very complicated to understand.

Originally Posted by Mattk

I fully understand the principle of self-preservation. It is a life-saving principle, where you put yourself out of harm first before attempting to rescue others. It has nothing to do with pre-emptive killing.

Actually, self-defense IS pre-emptive killing - that's the entire point, kill or be killed.

Every year, many burglars eat the lead popsicle as they break into peoples houses, and thankfully in most States of the Union now, the home owner is not charged when they kill the burglar.