[Osborn F Enready]

Chaoss said: Where did I say anyone has a right to trespass?

You seem to me, to be saying we should further restrict the right to protect life and property, instead of addressing the source of the problem, the people breaking the law by trespassing.

When I own property, I shouldn't have to "expect" my property limits to be broken. If I see someone in my yard, at dark, the first question that should come up is "why is someone in my yard without my permission?" The second is to assess the situation and see if a threat exists.

If I were to walk up on this "suspect" of criminal trespass, and they do something quickly that I feel places me in danger (mainly because its dark and like most people, have trouble seeing in the dark unless my eyes are fully adjusted), things could get ugly.

Instead of allowing situations like this to be "routine" we should be teaching people how important respect of property rights is.

Chaoss said: I said, and I thought quite clearly, that I thought this instance we're discussing would be excessive and yet legal under Texan law.

It may be, but why should people be further put at risk by limiting innocent people (property owners) for taking a just action? Why not start an educational campaign on the "importance of respecting property rights"?

You know 9 times out of 10, a person wouldn't be shot for TP'ing a tree in someones yard... but it is NOT the property owner who should be obligated to justify every action he takes, when the law is quite clear... NO TRESPASSING.

You also know in many situations things don't appear as they are, especially if you are walking into a group of people, who are already breaking the law, on your land, and they don't see you coming up on them. You don't know what to expect when you challenge them to identify themselves and state their reasons for being on your property, and you don't know if theyll react by shooting at you, or simply saying "hi mr, I have a flat, can I borrow a 4-way?"

You know as well as I do, people sometimes do stupid things, and in cases where a law has already been broken, we should give benefit of the doubt to the property owner.

Chaoss said: What in the hell does property rights have to do with the vagueness of a law that defines how you can legally kill someone?

Firstly, its a law about self-defense, its not a law explaining how to legally kill someone.

Secondly, because you think we should change the law, again, putting more restriction on the person who may be in serious threat to his life. I have trouble with that. People have enough pressure on them already from all the ridiculous rules and regulations you have to observe simply to exercise your right to defense.

We should not be protecting law breakers, at the expense of innocent people. If a person is trespassing, that is a serious issue that can end up in serious results, and that should be known when trespassing. Do you think people coming across the border from mexico into the U.S. worry about being shot? I wonder why?

You expect people to respect government "no trespassing signs" with reverance, yet can't observe the same thing for private individuals, and it just doesn't jive with me. Defense is defense, and the benefit of the doubt has to be with the property owner.

Chaoss said: I'm curious how you define over-reacting since you seem to be under the impression that shooting someone for trespassing is not.

I do think it is over-reaction to shoot someone "for trespassing". I can see how it could easily happen though if the situation isn't crystal clear, especially if there are multiple trespassers, and something could be interpreted as threatening.

Chaos said: If you feel your life is in danger from toilet paper,

Haha... not funny.

What if I am coming out of a brightly lit house, into a dark yard taking my trash out, notice people next to me who don't see me, and just as I recognize the shape I see them throw something that looks like a brick, or drawing a gun, or pulling a knife?

Obviously if it was identified as TP there wouldn't be an issue besides saying "GET OFF MY LAND".

Chaos said: your bathroom experiences must be awfully horrific, and you're of the mental state that you shouldn't be handling sharp pointy objects let alone firearms.

Obviously you are just trying to insult peoples intelligence and act as if accidents don't happen, while slipping in a few coy insults.

Childish.

Chaos said: You understand that this vagueness of law works both ways, right? Police could shoot you for trespassing on government property by your logic.

No kidding?!? Isn't this obvious?

Try wandering your ass on to a nuclear power plant property, and see what happens. Why? Because they don't know what your intentions are, what you have on you, if you're armed, etc.

Why should private property be any different if there is reason to believe the property owner felt a reasonable threat? Do you deny this could happen?

Chaos said: Also, terms like trespassing are ill-equiped to deal with this law. It's technically trespassing if a friend has you over, you offend them, they ask you to leave and you don't do so immediately.

By the logic you've demonstrated here they could be gunned down for this behavior.

How have I said anything like this.... you are reaching, and as usual, running with an example you didn't even think through.

Chaos said: .Do you have any concept of reasonable force? Sure children should learn to respect property rights? But if they don't, kill them? Christ...

Did I say I would?!? No.

The fact is, accidents happen, and the benefit of the doubt should be given to the property owner.