rehmwa 2 #51 September 5, 2013 wolfriverjoeOne of the earlier stories on this had a statement from one of the boaters that they had picked up rocks before the shots were fired. don't let that get in the way the PC zealots don't like guns - therefore, regardless of the truth or evidence, they already have the 'real' scenarios in their minds. It's too hard to give up the stereotypes they've been indoctrinated with all their lives. heck - if i was being confronted by a guy with a gun, I'd pick up a rock too. Oars are crappy throwing weapons and you can't use them until you get in close. I'd look around for something else. It's really Bush's fault, If Reagan would have just opened the borders, life would be better for baby seals and the rainforest. the real story will likely be something we see all the time - both sides are pretty much telling the truth and trying to live as best they can with the cards they are dealt with. A stupid confrontation results in bad words, throw rocks (maybe by just one guy out of the group, but someone does it), and a shot fired. Likely both sides were terrified and neither side is really evil. Only boat oars are truly evil.....err, I mean oar guns....uh, GUNS, yeah, guns. the real victim here was the rocks......they were just minding their own business before being violated in so many ways. I'm amazed at the acrobatics people use to put themselves mentally in the shoes of just one side of a conflict and not both sides. ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SkyDekker 1,465 #52 September 5, 2013 Just replying to the last post. But, what does this castle doctrine say? What elements need to be met before you can shoot somebody on your property? Is it just the fact that they are on your property to begin with? If his property line runs to the middle of the river, could he now shoot anybody who floats by on "his side" of the river? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
wolfriverjoe 1,523 #53 September 6, 2013 DiverMikeQuoteAnd the boaters wouldn't have a valid self defense claim because they were in the wrong as trespassers and vandals. I should let the lawyers respond to this, but that statement is not true. There is plenty of case law where it has been upheld that trespassers have the right to use lethal force to defend themselves when assaulted by the property owner (assuming all the criteria for self defense is met). It's true that there can be a valid claim, if the property owner assaults them, but in this case, he hadn't done anything other than tell them to get off his lawn. They responded to that by picking up rocks. He was carrying the gun, but not pointing it at them at that point. At least, that's what I remember the original story that I read saying. I could be "misremembering." And again, it will be up to the lawyers and the jury to sort all this out. And it's a hell of a mess."There are NO situations which do not call for a French Maid outfit." Lucky McSwervy "~ya don't GET old by being weak & stupid!" - Airtwardo Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
