Car Forum / Driving, Maintenance, Tuning / RVs / May 2007
Cure for the Ugly RVer
|
|
Thread rating:  |
Bill Ritto - 19 Apr 2007 14:37 GMT Have you suffered this:
Generator running all night?
Loud music?
Trash piles?
Sewage dumped on the ground?
Dogs crapping in your site?
Dope smoke wafting over from the hippie microbus?
Accidents do happen, but there is a cure for the truly inconsiderate. I use triple expanding building foam. Put a five foot plastic tube on the end that extends the nozzle. Place the tube in the tailpipe of the offender and inject a good amount of foam way up inside the tailpipe. Do not put too much so it comes out the end. When it hardens, the vehicle won't start and it will be very difficult to diagnose the problem.
Bill
torent - 20 Apr 2007 00:08 GMT > Have you suffered this: > [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > > Bill Your criminal recommendations won't be used against an inconsiderate RVer. Good people don't do such stuff. You gave an idea to a lot of criminal punks.
Eregon - 20 Apr 2007 00:11 GMT >> Have you suffered this: >> [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > RVer. Good people don't do such stuff. > You gave an idea to a lot of criminal punks. You must be young: a banana (lengthwise) or a potato plus a broomstick used to be the standard until they started putting 4+" exhausts on pickups.
JerryD(upstateNY) - 20 Apr 2007 01:45 GMT Eregon wrote:... You must be young: a banana (lengthwise) or a potato plus a broomstick used to be the standard until they started putting 4+" exhausts on pickups.<<<
I heard of the potato thing 40+ years ago.
 Signature JerryD(upstateNY)
Steve Barker - 20 Apr 2007 01:59 GMT it was funny as hell on school busses. They have such a long system, they'd go ahead and start, then blow that thing out better than any spud gun made.
 Signature Steve Barker
> Eregon wrote:... You must be young: a banana (lengthwise) or a potato plus > a broomstick used to be the standard until they started putting 4+" > exhausts on pickups.<<< > > I heard of the potato thing 40+ years ago. Eregon - 20 Apr 2007 02:13 GMT "JerryD\(upstateNY\)" <jerryd@wherever.com> wrote in news:46280cf5$0$19437 $4c368faf@roadrunner.com:
> I heard of the potato thing 40+ years ago. You only HEARD about it 40+ years ago?
Good Grief!
I USED it over 50 years ago!
Another "trick" was to put 1/2 cup of sand in each of the guy's tires: after a few turns, he'd have to come to a complete stop in order to regain control and, then, if he "peeled out", he'd have a "4-wheeled jackrabbit" on his hands... <G>
The "mean" kids would "sweeten his gas tank" by adding a box of sugar cubes through the filler pipe to insure that he'd be staying at home for a while...
JerryD(upstateNY) - 20 Apr 2007 10:01 GMT The "mean" kids would "sweeten his gas tank" by adding a box of sugar cubes through the filler pipe to insure that he'd be staying at home for a while...
This is an urban legend. Sugar doesn't dissolve in gasoline so all that would do is leave a bunch of lumps in the bottom of the tank.
 Signature JerryD(upstateNY)
Will Sill - 20 Apr 2007 12:04 GMT I see where Eregon <Eregon@Saphira.org> contributed:
>The "mean" kids would "sweeten his gas tank" by adding a box of sugar cubes >through the filler pipe to insure that he'd be staying at home for a >while... Myth - recently proven untrue by Mythbusters. Also see http://www.snopes.com/autos/grace/sugar.asp
Will "A liberal is someone who feels a great debt to his fellow Man, which debt he proposes to pay off with your money." G. Gordon Liddy
Whomever - 20 Apr 2007 21:50 GMT > "JerryD\(upstateNY\)" <jerryd@wherever.com> wrote in news:46280cf5$0$19437 > $4c368faf@roadrunner.com: [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > through the filler pipe to insure that he'd be staying at home for a > while... I'm curious as to how you could get 1/2 cup of sand into a tire?
Jim Redelfs - 21 Apr 2007 01:36 GMT > I'm curious as to how you could get 1/2 cup of sand into a tire? A Shrader valve adapter and funnel.
Sold at every auto parts store, right?
 Signature :) JR
Eregon - 21 Apr 2007 02:25 GMT Jim Redelfs <jim.redelfs@NOSPAMredelfs.com> wrote in news:jim.redelfs- 3A4D09.19365720042007@news.lga.highwinds-media.com:
>> I'm curious as to how you could get 1/2 cup of sand into a tire? > > A Shrader valve adapter and funnel. > > Sold at every auto parts store, right? An even simpler approach:
1. Block up the axle. 2. Remove valve core. 3. Use funnel to guide sand into tire. 4. Replace valve core. 5. Re-air the tire.
The practice is especially interesting when the victim loves to drag race on the streets, most especially in hilly terrain. <G>
VWs were also simple to deal with: 4 (or more) guys would pick one up and place each of the bumpers against the walls of a building where a right angle was formed. (Isettas could be dealt with by simply moving the car so that the front bumper was against a wall.)
Rudy - 21 Apr 2007 15:37 GMT > "JerryD\(upstateNY\)" <jerryd@wherever.com> wrote in news:46280cf5$0$19437 > $4c368faf@roadrunner.com: [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > through the filler pipe to insure that he'd be staying at home for a > while... You wascally wabbit did not tell me you found a village over 50 years ago, sugar in the gas tank does nothing and sand in the tires actually will help to balance your wheels what a maroon. You know even village idiots get to retire and 50 years is enough really. Let me know when your ready to make the big move, it just so happens I have the Brooklyn bridge for sale, nice place to sleep under running water and all that. Rudy
NotMe - 20 Apr 2007 04:29 GMT | Eregon wrote:... You must be young: a banana (lengthwise) or a potato plus a | broomstick used to be the standard until they started putting 4+" exhausts | on pickups.<<< | | I heard of the potato thing 40+ years ago. Most shade tree mechanics would test by putting their hand over the exhast to test for back pressure.
Rtavi - 02 May 2007 03:39 GMT > | Eregon wrote:... You must be young: a banana (lengthwise) or a potato > plus [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > Most shade tree mechanics would test by putting their hand over the exhast
> to test for back pressure. We used to do the potato thing on halloween 50 years ago but you didnt leave the potato on the exhaust you just broke off a plug into the pipe. then when they did get it cranked you got a great backfire.
NotMe - 02 May 2007 21:07 GMT | > | Eregon wrote:... You must be young: a banana (lengthwise) or a potato | > plus [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] | the potato on the exhaust you just broke off a plug into the pipe. then when | they did get it cranked you got a great backfire. Done right that trick will give the vhicle 'sreight pipes'
Steven Vaughan - 20 Apr 2007 11:40 GMT > Have you suffered this: > [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > > Bill You have no idea just how much tortious liability you just exposed yourself to... Do you honestly think you're truly anonymous? If so, you're an even bigger moron than your posts indicate.
Bill Ritto - 20 Apr 2007 14:59 GMT >> Have you suffered this: >> [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > yourself to... Do you honestly think you're truly anonymous? If so, you're > an even bigger moron than your posts indicate. Am I as big a dope as all the others who piled on and said it's been known for 40+ years and they actually performed and tested the acts?
By merely existing, in todays litiguous society, one is exposed to toxic levels of tortious liability.
Speaking of liability, today is the 8th anniversary of the Columbine tragedy. How much did the victims collect in their cases?
I may be a big moron, but there's alway someone willing to outdo me.
Bill
NotMe - 20 Apr 2007 21:44 GMT | "Bill Ritto" | > Have you suffered this: [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] | > | > Bill Some parts of the county such activities can get you legally shot.
In other parts you just get shot but shot regardless.
Reminds me of a cyclist I once knew of ... softer than a road side post only dumber.
Bob Crantz - 20 Apr 2007 23:57 GMT >| "Bill Ritto" > | > Have you suffered this: [quoted text clipped - 29 lines] > Reminds me of a cyclist I once knew of ... softer than a road side post > only dumber. Where is the United States is it legal to shot some one who is not immediately physically threatening yourself or someone else? I don't think it is legal to shoot anyone anywhere for simple vandalism.
I am surprised at the hypocrisy demonstrated here. It's ok to say go out and run over and kill bicyclists but when someone mentions an childish idiot prank all hell breaks loose. I'm even more shocked by the outright advocacy of killing people for minor traffic infractions or silly vandalism.Am I the only one here seeing this? Where is the outrage?
That troll Shay O'Shad may be an annoyance but his larger point is proven by quite a few here over and over again.
Eregon - 21 Apr 2007 21:44 GMT > Where is the United States is it legal to shot some one who is not > immediately physically threatening yourself or someone else? I don't > think it is legal to shoot anyone anywhere for simple vandalism. Texas.
"It's better to have a dead body to explain away than to have a live one that can explain for himself." - Old Texas Proverb.
Come September 1, 2007, the perp's family won't even be able to file a "Wrongful Death" lawsuit. <G>
JerryD(upstateNY) - 22 Apr 2007 04:22 GMT "It's better to have a dead body to explain away than to have a live one that can explain for himself." - Old Texas Proverb.<<<<<
G.Gordon Liddy said that if someone is breaking in your home and it is legal to shoot them, it's legal to kill them. Then there's only ONE story of what happened.
 Signature JerryD(upstateNY)
Rtavi - 02 May 2007 03:41 GMT > "It's better to have a dead body to explain away than to have a live one > that can explain for himself." - Old Texas Proverb.<<<<< > > G.Gordon Liddy said that if someone is breaking in your home and it is > legal to shoot them, it's legal to kill them. > Then there's only ONE story of what happened. Southerners know that "He just needed killing" is an acceptable defense for curbing egregious antisocial behavior.
Dean - 25 Apr 2007 02:18 GMT >> Where is the United States is it legal to shot some one who is not >> immediately physically threatening yourself or someone else? I don't [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >Come September 1, 2007, the perp's family won't even be able to file a >"Wrongful Death" lawsuit. <G> What is the basis of this tidbit? Some new federal legislation? More info please.
RAM³ - 26 Apr 2007 16:06 GMT >>> Where is the United States is it legal to shot some one who is not >>> immediately physically threatening yourself or someone else? I don't [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > What is the basis of this tidbit? Some new federal legislation? More > info please. Try the Texas Legislature website.
The bill was signed into Law by Governor Perry about a month ago and takes effect September 1,2007.
Dean - 26 Apr 2007 18:36 GMT >>>> Where is the United States is it legal to shot some one who is not >>>> immediately physically threatening yourself or someone else? I don't [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] >The bill was signed into Law by Governor Perry about a month ago and takes >effect September 1,2007. Very good!
Janet Wilder - 22 Apr 2007 01:02 GMT > I am surprised at the hypocrisy demonstrated here. It's ok to say go out and > run over and kill bicyclists but when someone mentions an childish idiot [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > That troll Shay O'Shad may be an annoyance but his larger point is proven by > quite a few here over and over again. Don't confuse Newsgroup bravado with the truth.
 Signature Janet Wilder Bad spelling. Bad punctuation Good Friends. Good Life
Ted Bell / Shad O'Shay - 22 Apr 2007 18:49 GMT >> I am surprised at the hypocrisy demonstrated here. It's ok to say go >> out and run over and kill bicyclists but when someone mentions an [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > Don't confuse Newsgroup bravado with the truth. Janet, you're a trip. How can you call death threats "bravado" with a straight face? Don't you think saying something dumb like that places you squarely in with the hypocrite bullies? I'm serious. It's like I heard a recording of some American actor guy named Alex Baldwin and he was giving his 11-year-old daughter hell in a recorded phone message. Called her a rude little fat pig and said he was coming to whup her a.s silly. Some shrink they interviewed was all apologetic about poor Alex's behavior. Said he maybe needed some counseling. Duh? I guess it's now OK to verbally abuse an 11-year-old girl and call her terrible names. But, if you're a talk show host like that Imus fellow and if you call female basketball players who are grown up and haired over, "nappy-headed hos" you get fired. Janet, you should be fired... You've just condoned threats of murder most heinous.
Shad O'Shay
Ted Bell / Shad O'Shay - 22 Apr 2007 18:41 GMT > I am surprised at the hypocrisy demonstrated here. It's ok to say go > out and run over and kill bicyclists but when someone mentions an [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > That troll Shay O'Shad may be an annoyance but his larger point is > proven by quite a few here over and over again. Hey, Bob, please watch out who you're calling a troll. I'd rather be viewed as an "educator." My main concern is trying to relieve most of these good folks of the burden of their total ignorance towards cyclists which results in their bully tactics and death threats. I've been really patient and reasonable and have done lots of work and Googling providing them with bicycle traffic law facts and I think some of them are starting to realize how wrong they've been about who has every right to use the roadways. But is there ONE person here man enough to admit his mistakes and apologize for his rudeness, threats to life and limb and ignorance of the law? If there is, I have yet to see a post to that effect. Even the women have been uppity and ungracious.
You asked where's the outrage. Well, some of it is here with me. I get outraged every time some ignorant, bully RVer threatens my life with his RV. You know, it's one thing if somebody has the right attitude and takes the time to learn a few things so they don't remain ignorant and dangerous their whole lives but it's another thing altogether when they persist in their ignorance in the face of the facts which I've posted here many a time. It's pathological the way some of these people act. They seem to think how they act is perfectly acceptable behavior. Laughing about pancaking cyclists while if a cyclist threatens to key their RV or plug up the exhaust system with foam in retaliation, they go ballistic. You can see where their heads are at -- right up their big fat a.ses in most cases. RVers are the only group I know of whose neck size and butthole size are a perfect match.
But, I'm happy that it's easy for you too see how many of the folks here are totally mentally unbalanced. I'm hoping it's pretty obvious to some others who might be more reasonable and mature to see. Glibly threaten to kill innocent cyclists who are legally using the roadways on one hand and, on the other hand, act horrified, upset and crestfallen if somebody even jokes about damaging their precious RVs.
It shows these folks have no life because their life is an RV which they seem to value all out of proportion to the irritating, resource hogging pollution machine the things are. So they can have fun, they pollute the planet way way more than their fair share. This should tell everybody about the reason RV people buy them in the first place. It's mostly because they ARE ignorant of the law, they ARE unconcerned about their Carbon Dioxide footprint, they ARE arrogant, rude bullies and they whine like a bunch of crybabies if somebody as much as jokes about turning the tables on them.
We sane, fit and healthy people DO NEED to work together to try to do something about the RV menace and the fat slobs and mental midgets who seem drawn to the RV abomination. If these people just got fit they would quickly see how plunking their fat, diseased carcasses down inside a big, ugly, dangerous, pollution and greenhouse gas-spewing vehicle is a really irresponsible thing to do. The more they ride around in RVs the more out of shape they become. Their entire life consists of sitting - sitting and driving, sitting and eating, sitting and watching TV, sitting and drinking alcohol, sitting and picking their noses, sitting and drooling and sitting and smelling.
They see a fit, healthy cyclist who embodies everything they don't have the will power to be and they resent it. They get really pissed because seeing that cyclist makes them realize how gross they have let themselves become and how disgusting they really are for allowing it to continue. Not to mention choosing RVing as a means to further their folly and shorten their worthless lives.
Some call me a troll. I call myself an educator and a realist. It's easy for somebody I describe accurately to yell the "T" word because they think, in doing so, they can change the subject and point he blame finger somewhere else. Sorry, guys and gals, it won't work. Most people see you for what you really are. Mean, judgmental, arrogant bully people who, deep down, hate it because you know you're that way but don't have the resolve to stop being that way.
Ever see a fat person strip and take a good long look at themselves in front of a full length mirror? Not likely. They don't want to see how disgusting they really are. Not just disgusting in body but also disgusting in mind for letting their body get that way. Nope, go into a fat person's house. Try to find a full length mirror. You might find one on the inside of a bedroom closet door but it is NEVER used. These people know they are guilty of gluttony. They know they are sinners. They know they look awful. They know their health is suffering. They just lack the guts to do something about it.
And, I'm in a position to point the finger without being a hypocrite about it. I'm as fit as any human being on the planet. I have no self-inflicted diseases such as hypertension, diabetes, cholesterol through the roof, joint problems, bad backs, sore feet, sleep apnea etc. - all the self-inflicted diseases of the obese.
Nope, not me! I look like a human male is supposed to look. My body is my temple and I keep it in the very best of shape. My Creator expects no less. He has prepared Hell for your like. He has a better place prepared for me. That's the one thing that gives me great comfort. There will be few, if any, gluttonous bullies to besmirch Heaven. Lord, give me the patience to abide them here on Earth. It can't even be said that they know not what they do . . .
Amstel Gold Classic in Belgium Monday. Wish me luck.
Shad O'Shay
PaulT - 23 Apr 2007 12:36 GMT > Hey, Bob, please watch out who you're calling a troll.
> Shad O'Shay Not only a troll, but a morphing troll. a.shole.
David Moffitt - 23 Apr 2007 21:18 GMT >> I am surprised at the hypocrisy demonstrated here. It's ok to say go out >> and run over and kill bicyclists but when someone mentions an childish [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > Hey, Bob, please watch out who you're calling a troll. I'd rather be > viewed as an "educator." Many view you as an a.shole.
My main concern is trying to relieve most of
> these good folks of the burden of their total ignorance towards cyclists > which results in their bully tactics and death threats. I've been really [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > cases. RVers are the only group I know of whose neck size and butthole > size are a perfect match. Sound like another one of your homoerotic fantasies.
> But, I'm happy that it's easy for you too see how many of the folks here > are totally mentally unbalanced. I'm hoping it's pretty obvious to some [quoted text clipped - 30 lines] > to mention choosing RVing as a means to further their folly and shorten > their worthless lives. I was stuck behind a cyclist for 5 miles on a narrow winding hilly road near Center Hill Lake this past weekend. (Those familiar with the area know what I'm talking about.) There were several RV's stuck behind this joker as he cruised along at 10 miles an hour on a road too narrow to pass with an RV. We were keeping a good space between rigs for safety sake. In my rear view mirror I could see 2 Harleys weaving in and out passing the slow traffic. When they got to the front of the line they took care of our slow cyclist. I don't know if they harmed him but he was sitting on his blue and yellow spandexed butt in a gravel driveway when I passed.
> Some call me a troll. I call myself an educator and a realist. It's easy > for somebody I describe accurately to yell the "T" word because they [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > > Nope, not me! I look like a human male is supposed to look. LMAO! You look like a skinny weasel in your pictures. God did not intend for a grown man to look like anorexic prepubesent child.
My body is
> my temple and I keep it in the very best of shape. My Creator expects no > less. He has prepared Hell for your like. He has a better place prepared [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > Shad O'Shay daveleejd@cox.net - 24 Apr 2007 21:50 GMT >> Nope, not me! I look like a human male is supposed to look. > >LMAO! You look like a skinny weasel in your pictures. God did not intend for >a grown man to look like anorexic prepubesent child. Is that even really him?? I'm starting to picture him more as what he despises most, a fat lazy prick sitting in his mom's basement. Probably fantasizing about a big RV.
And now he exposes his holy roller side, typical better than thou bible thumping shithead. Narcissistic shithead if I may add, daydreaming of riding his schwinn behind a bunch of men in tights. Tell me, Mr. O'Shay, would you know a Reverand Michael Schmidtt?
Google that jerk and see how you two sound alike.
Ted Bell / Shad O'Shay - 26 Apr 2007 18:40 GMT >>> Nope, not me! I look like a human male is supposed to look. >> [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > despises most, a fat lazy prick sitting in his mom's basement. > Probably fantasizing about a big RV. Of course that isn't me. Only some ignorant RVer imbeciles would believe that nonsense. Some fool posts a link to a picture of a geek and you take it to the bank. Take a look at a few pictures of riders in the ProTour. I bet most of you have seen pictures of Lance Armstrong - one of the fittest athletes on the planet. You won't find any skinny little geeks. You will find muscled men who can kick your out-of-shape butts any day of the week. So, get over it!
> And now he exposes his holy roller side, typical better than thou > bible thumping shithead. Narcissistic shithead if I may add, > daydreaming of riding his schwinn behind a bunch of men in tights. > Tell me, Mr. O'Shay, would you know a Reverand Michael Schmidtt? Never heard of the Reverand. But, why do you fear the Lord? Is it because you worship the devil and deny the Lord. If this is the case you have condemned yourself to eternal damnation. It's your choice. Choose carefully. There's still time for you to repent of your blasphemy.
Honestly, you RVers are a truly frightened bunch. Maybe that's what attracts you guys to RVs in the first place. You're frightened so you attempt to escape. You choose an RV as an escape vehicle. Well, let me give you a clue... You can't run and you can't hide. Grow up already!
Shad O'Shay
David Moffitt - 26 Apr 2007 23:48 GMT >>>> Nope, not me! I look like a human male is supposed to look. >>> [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > that nonsense. Some fool posts a link to a picture of a geek and you take > it to the bank. Yes a picture of a skinny geek named Ted Bell holding a cycle trophy.
Take a look at a few pictures of riders in the
> ProTour. I bet most of you have seen pictures of Lance Armstrong You are not Lance Armstrong.
- one
> of the fittest athletes on the planet. You won't find any skinny little > geeks. Except you Tom?
You will find muscled men who can kick your out-of-shape butts
> any day of the week. So, get over it! Not all of us are elderly men Ted.
>> And now he exposes his holy roller side, typical better than thou >> bible thumping shithead. Narcissistic shithead if I may add, [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > Shad O'Shay Rtavi - 02 May 2007 03:44 GMT "Nope, not me! I look like a human male is supposed to look. My body is my temple"
And I can only admire your devotion and constancy involved in your self worship
Shad O'Shay - 02 May 2007 17:39 GMT >> "Nope, not me! I look like a human male is supposed to look. My body >> is >> my temple" >> > And I can only admire your devotion and constancy involved in your > self worship One is well-served when one admires any of God's creations especially the more perfect creations.
Shad O'Shay
Todd - 03 May 2007 21:12 GMT >>> "Nope, not me! I look like a human male is supposed to look. My body >>> is [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > Shad O'Shay he he he. good one shadster!
todd
NotMe - 23 Apr 2007 03:42 GMT | >| "Bill Ritto" | > | > Have you suffered this: [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] | > | > offender and inject a good amount of foam way up inside the tailpipe. | > Do not put too much so it comes out the end. When it hardens, the vehicle
| > | > won't start and it will be very difficult to diagnose the problem. | > | > [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] | That troll Shay O'Shad may be an annoyance but his larger point is proven by | quite a few here over and over again. In Texas it is legal to use deadly force to protect property. With regards to live stock it's been that way since the area belonged to the Spanish. Regardless a good attorney and a few hard nosed conservatives and the DA is unlikely to convict. Might/likely be the grand jury will nol-pros. (spl?)
Been a while but Jim Wright's (TX congressman) dad (then in his 90) shot a few cattle thieves on his ranch in west Texas. When asked about gun control the old boy said he was all for a steady hand. Deputies, reporters and the DA congratulated the Sr Wright on his shootin'.
When the end game is one story how much less dead is the trickster.?
As to what he's up to ... considering all that is in the news today who's to say that what is poked up the tail pipe is not an explosive?
Like I said softer than a post only dumber.
RAM³ - 24 Apr 2007 01:49 GMT > Where is the United States is it legal to shot some one who is not > immediately physically threatening yourself or someone else? I don't > think it is legal to shoot anyone anywhere for simple vandalism. If a vandal, when accosted by a homeowner, threatens violence then, in Texas, he's "dead meat" since the *perception* by the homeowner/resident is the important factor.
If the perp gets "mouthy" and/or "pushy" the perp can plan on "pushing up Daisies" from 6' undedrground.
If the perp has friends accompanying him then THEY will be tried for the perp's death.
If the perp displays a firearm then, if the perp survives the encounter, the perp will *also* be charged with Assault With A Deadly Weapon and, in addition to the 10 years for that crime, will get an additional 10 years of mandatory prison time for the use/possession of a firearm during the commission of a crime.
Bear in mind that the two most often seen "slogans" are meant most literally:
"Don't Mess With Texas!" and "Texas: It's like a whole other Country!"
Alan Smithee - 24 Apr 2007 03:42 GMT >> Where is the United States is it legal to shot some one who is not >> immediately physically threatening yourself or someone else? I don't [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > > "Don't Mess With Texas!" and "Texas: It's like a whole other Country!" If the perpetrator is passive and intends no harm (say his act is placing religious literature in the doorhandle) and the homeowner threatens him with violence, can the perpetrator defend himself and kill the homeowner? What if the perpetrator fears for his life because of an over reaction of the homeowner?
According to what you say, it seems that even in Texas the homeowner has to be threatened in some way. I guess if the victim is shot in the back the homeowner has no defense. All this applies to protecting the home and someone who is threatened.
NotMe - 24 Apr 2007 05:18 GMT >> Where is the United States is it legal to shot some one who is not | >> immediately physically threatening yourself or someone else? I don't [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] | the perpetrator fears for his life because of an over reaction of the | homeowner? No to taking any action other than to leave the premises.
If the prep does anything else it's 'Frying Time' at Huntsville.
| According to what you say, it seems that even in Texas the homeowner has to | be threatened in some way. I guess if the victim is shot in the back the | homeowner has no defense. All this applies to protecting the home and | someone who is threatened. Depends on what the homeowner perceive the perp was doing at the time he was shot in the back.
What part of Don't Mess With Texas!" is unclear?
Alan Smithee - 24 Apr 2007 20:18 GMT > What part of Don't Mess With Texas!" is unclear? This part which is a quote of yours:
"In Texas it is legal to use deadly force to protect property."
Prove it. Just show or cite the one single statute from Texas.
Jud Hardcastle - 25 Apr 2007 00:06 GMT > > What part of Don't Mess With Texas!" is unclear? > > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Prove it. Just show or cite the one single statute from Texas. Only in one particular case: --quote-- TEXAS CONCEALED HANDGUN LAWS PC §9.42. DEADLY FORCE TO PROTECT PROPERTY. A person is justified in using deadly force against another to protect land or tangible, movable property: ..omitted.. (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 --endquote-- Note the "nighttime" clauses on both of these. The idea being that at night if the homeowner goes to check a noise and finds a perp stealing something the homeowner cannot see well enough to acurately determine if said perp is armed or not and therefore gets to assume that he is. That's the only case I know of that allows use of deadly force to protect personal property even under the new law--and it's not really protecting personal property--technically it's the safety of the carry holder/homeowner.
 Signature Jud Dallas TX USA
Steven Vaughan - 25 Apr 2007 03:07 GMT it. Just show or cite the one single statute from Texas.
> Only in one particular case: > --quote-- [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > protecting personal property--technically it's the safety of the carry > holder/homeowner. Better read it again.... v e r y s l o w l y
Alan Smithee - 25 Apr 2007 21:32 GMT > That's the only case I know of that allows use of deadly force to > protect personal property even under the new law--and it's not really > protecting personal property--technically it's the safety of the carry > holder/homeowner. Thanks for the information. I appreciate your time spent and I agree with your interpretation, otherwise one could enjoy full priveleges to protect property regardless of time of day.
Alan
Dean - 25 Apr 2007 02:38 GMT >If the perpetrator is passive and intends no harm (say his act is placing >religious literature in the doorhandle) and the homeowner threatens him with [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >homeowner has no defense. All this applies to protecting the home and >someone who is threatened. A bunch of people on this thread should have to go through the first year of law school. Subjects taught (normally) are Contracts, Crim. Law, Civil Procedure, Crim. Procedure, Property, Torts, Legal Research/Writing and Constitutional Law.
In these courses you are taught that there are laws and you must use the facts as known against the laws. You are NOT taught the law. You are taught how think like a lawyer. How to take knows and bounce them off of the applicable laws.
All elements of a tort or criminal case must be proven. For example, you can have all the evidence you want but if you are missing one element, the case should go away.
Witness the recent crap in North Carolina. Based on all the evidence, these guys were guilty. Except for one minor detail. NO DNA.
Defense of a criminal or prosecuting same, or being a plaintiff's or defendants lawyer is NOT an easy job. The easiest job in the world is second guessing the law and calling to "kill all the lawyers" which is a quote taken out of context.
Janet Wilder - 25 Apr 2007 15:37 GMT > A bunch of people on this thread should have to go through the first > year of law school. Subjects taught (normally) are Contracts, Crim. [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > you can have all the evidence you want but if you are missing one > element, the case should go away. But it doesn't really, does it? The news is constantly reporting about people who were wrongfully convicted. Circumstantial evidence, by it's own definition is not "proof". People are convicted of murder when there is no body.
A finding for the Plaintiff in a civil matter (tort) is by preponderance of evidence, so not all elements have to be proven, just "most" of them.
> Witness the recent crap in North Carolina. Based on all the evidence, > these guys were guilty. Except for one minor detail. NO DNA. I believe that there was also the constantly changing testimony of the "victim" and the friend who was with her gave statements that contradicted hers, too.
> Defense of a criminal or prosecuting same, or being a plaintiff's or > defendants lawyer is NOT an easy job. The easiest job in the world is > second guessing the law and calling to "kill all the lawyers" which is > a quote taken out of context. To me the hardest job in the world was knowing the law, case and statutory, and having some a--hole judge rule on a personal whim. Happens all the time in Civil court, especially in jurisdictions where judges are appointed, not elected. Sayings like "all the bad lawyers who couldn't earn a living become judges" were common and most times rang true. That's not to say that I wasn't impressed with a few judges. I used to sneak into one guy's court room just to hear him. He went on to higher benches, but the majority of judges I came across were ignorant jerks depending upon their law clerks to make the decisions. The average litigant can't afford the cost of an appeal, so they suffer injustice.
I spent many years in the legal profession and "some of my best friends are lawyers" (really) but there are many, many ills in this country that are the direct result of over-litigation. For the longest time Americans didn't need laws and lawyers to protect us from ourselves. We haven't gotten dumber, we've just accumulated more lawyers since LBJ made it so easy for so many kids to go to law school. Many of them wound up tending bar as opposed to practicing before it so the legal profession had to invent work.
A couple of product liability suits can generate thousands of jobs for corporate attorneys who know how to twist words. They are countered by another thousand Plaintiff's lawyers who want to convince juries to un-twist the words.
There are things that the whore on the street corner won't do for money, but there is nothing, IMO, a lawyer won't do for money.
Lawyers do have some value, however. I would not write my own will or use a form or computer program, nor would I enter into an important contract without one. I just got a nice check from a class action suit where the attorney worked for close to 10 years on the contingency. There are some good ones.
 Signature Janet Wilder Bad spelling. Bad punctuation Good Friends. Good Life
Alan Smithee - 24 Apr 2007 03:46 GMT Only if the person is physically threatened. Anyone who thinks otherwise is advocating murder.
Use of deadly force likely to be expanded in Texas By Hugh Aynesworth THE WASHINGTON TIMES March 22, 2007
DALLAS -- Texas legislators have sent to Gov. Rick Perry's desk a bill that allows people to use deadly force against attackers outside their homes under a much broader range of circumstances than current law allows, including in defense of their cars or businesses. There is little doubt Mr. Perry will sign the bill, which broadens the scope of self-defense claims in homicide cases, because it passed unanimously (30-0) in the Texas Senate last week and by a 133-13 margin with no debate in the House on Tuesday. And he publicly has praised the Legislature for passing it. The self-defense legislation, proponents claim, strengthens a resident's right to defend his home and harkens back to the state law before it was changed 33 years ago. The bill has been called the "Castle Doctrine," from the age-old feeling that a man's home is his castle and that he has a total right to defend it. Opponents, including some prosecutors, claim the new legislation, which for the first time includes the right to protect oneself in a vehicle and the workplace, fosters a "shoot first and ask questions later" mentality. "With the enactment of this bill, law-abiding Texas citizens can defend themselves against criminal attack in their home, car or business without having to worry they will be prosecuted," said Republican Rep. Joe Driver of Garland, the lead sponsor in the House. In 1973, in revising the state's criminal code, the Legislature made it mandatory for a person under criminal attack to retreat "if a reasonable person would do so" under similar circumstances. A dozen years ago, the state body amended that, adding that a victim need not retreat if the confrontation occurred in his home. A spokeswoman for Mr. Perry, Krista Moody, yesterday called this legislation "an important move to ensure Texans have the right to defend themselves when it counts the most." The National Rifle Association strongly backed the legislation, along with most Republicans in the Legislature. "Law-abiding citizens now have the choice to defend themselves and their families in the face of attack, knowing their decision will not be second-guessed by the state of Texas," said Chris W. Cox, chief lobbyist for the NRA. A secondary facet of the bill protects a person from being sued by his attacker, or the attacker's family, for injuries if the shooter was deemed to have been acting in self-defense. A third element is troublesome to some prosecutors and gun-control advocates. The bill would protect a person acting in self-defense if he or she was not breaking the law at the time, did not provoke the attack or had reason to believe that the other person wanted to rape, kidnap, kill or rob him. Rob Kepple, executive director of the Texas District and County Attorneys Association, said he worried that the bill might "create a new presumption of self-defense" that might aid criminals. He called the bill a solution looking for a problem. Texas is not the first state to broaden its self-defense exception in recent years. In 2005, Florida passed a "stand your ground" law that permits licensed adults to use their firearms to defend themselves and others against serious or life-threatening attacks. State Sen. Jeff Wentworth, the San Antonio Republican who guided the bill through his chamber, said he never liked the previous wording that required a victim to retreat. "I do not believe that the law should require me to wait and decide if someone who is breaking into my home or office or attempting to hijack my car intends to harm me or a member of my family," he said last year. "The law," he added, "should allow me to use immediate force to protect myself, my family and my property without fear of being charged with a crime or being sued." Another bill, one that would let employees keep concealed weapons locked in their vehicles at work, cleared the Senate Judiciary Committee this week, but might have some difficulty gaining passage. Bill Hammond, president of the Texas Association of Business, said that bill violates an employer's property rights and go against the employer's legal duty to maintain a safe workplace. "Easy access to a weapon could create a serious problem in the workplace," he said.
JerryD(upstateNY) - 24 Apr 2007 05:25 GMT Alan Smithee wrote:.. Use of deadly force likely to be expanded in Texas By Hugh Aynesworth THE WASHINGTON TIMES March 22, 2007<<<<<<<<<<<
This is probably the Castle Doctrine that has been passed by a number of states lately. Basically it no longer requires anyone to retreat if being attacked.
 Signature JerryD(upstateNY)
Jud Hardcastle - 24 Apr 2007 15:24 GMT > Alan Smithee wrote:.. Use of deadly force likely to be expanded in Texas By > Hugh Aynesworth [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > states lately. > Basically it no longer requires anyone to retreat if being attacked. Right. The CHL holder still has to believe his life is in immediate danger from the attacker. Now, if the knife wielding perp is 20ft away and telling you he's going to kill you if don't hand over your money or car keys you have to turn and run if you can. After the new law goes into effect the holder will no longer have to flee--they can "stand their ground" as long as they have a legal right to be there--and defend themselves with lethal force if the perp advances his attack. "Mouthy" or "pushy" is not goint to cut it--you can bet the legal system will be watching this very closely and if they don't buy the "life in danger" aspect the shooter will quickly discover the inside of a jail cell.
 Signature Jud Dallas TX USA
JerryD(upstateNY) - 24 Apr 2007 16:38 GMT This is probably the Castle Doctrine that has been passed by a number of states lately. Basically it no longer requires anyone to retreat if being attacked.<<<<<<<<<<
http://www.nraila.org/Issues/Articles/Read.aspx?id=199&issue=042 The Castle Doctrine is now the law in Alabama, Arizona, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Kentucky, Mississippi, South Dakota and now Texas.
Other states have laws pending.
 Signature JerryD(upstateNY)
daveleejd@cox.net - 25 Apr 2007 22:58 GMT >> Alan Smithee wrote:.. Use of deadly force likely to be expanded in Texas By >> Hugh Aynesworth [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] >watching this very closely and if they don't buy the "life in danger" >aspect the shooter will quickly discover the inside of a jail cell. There are training videos out there for Law Enforecment that demonstrate that even at 20feet, a 'skilled' person with a knife can attack and harm well before you can draw on them. It really is eye openeing to see it done. Therefore, based on my training, if I see a knife, the weapon gets drawn and traqined on the subject. I'll leave the proof if he is a skilled person to the jury.
Jim Redelfs - 21 Apr 2007 01:42 GMT > "Bill Ritto" <bill.ritto@desystems.org> wrote in message
> there is a cure for the truly inconsiderate > [Deleted: An incredibly effective form of vandalism]
> You have no idea just how much tortious liability you > just exposed yourself to... Do you honestly think you're > truly anonymous? If so, you're an even > bigger moron than your posts indicate. Yeah, but what he said only applies to "truly inconsiderate" campers. If you are considerate, you have NOTHING to fear.
(Now running off to the hardware store to buy a can of foam...)
 Signature :) JR
|
|
|