I believe it depends on where you live. Here in CA, I would NOT put my fate in the hands of a jury. Have you seen some of the decisions they hand down. Standing up for your rights is one thing, but here in La La land, putting up any sign like the one you described is like wearing a sign that says prosecute me, I dare you.
An inadvisable practice?
- Thread starter Coinneach
- Start date
Hey Art, ALL of Austin is not ant-gun. i.e. Chip McCormick, Bev McCord... and all of us that shoot IDPA at CENTEX. 
If I rememeber the retoric right from CHL training, you never... EVER.... shoot to kill someone. However, if you completly and totally believe your life is in danger, you should use whatever force you have available to REMOVE THE THREAT! This is almost a mantra. I have all but removed the word "kill" from my vocabulary. "Shoot to Kill" is completly gone, never to be uttered again.
Is the advertizement that you will defend your self effective? Dunno. I have a buddy who lives in a neighborhood which was being robbed by some BGs who were casing the area in a car. They would drive by and look for open garages, stop, grab something out of the garage, and then high tail it out of there.
My buddy was working in his garage and saw the hollagans caseing his home. He calmly picked up an 870 from his workbench, racked it, and set it back on the bench. The whole time looking DIRECTLY at the BGs. He was rewarded with the smell of burning rubber as they speed out of the neighborhod.
My 2 cents... he simply advertized he was going from Yellow to Orange.. and it was very effective.
------------------
Bubba
IDPA# A04739
====
It is long been a principal of ours that one is no more armed because he has possession of a firearm than he is a musician because he owns a piano. There is no point in having a gun if you are not capable of using it skillfully. - Jeff Cooper
If I rememeber the retoric right from CHL training, you never... EVER.... shoot to kill someone. However, if you completly and totally believe your life is in danger, you should use whatever force you have available to REMOVE THE THREAT! This is almost a mantra. I have all but removed the word "kill" from my vocabulary. "Shoot to Kill" is completly gone, never to be uttered again.
Is the advertizement that you will defend your self effective? Dunno. I have a buddy who lives in a neighborhood which was being robbed by some BGs who were casing the area in a car. They would drive by and look for open garages, stop, grab something out of the garage, and then high tail it out of there.
My buddy was working in his garage and saw the hollagans caseing his home. He calmly picked up an 870 from his workbench, racked it, and set it back on the bench. The whole time looking DIRECTLY at the BGs. He was rewarded with the smell of burning rubber as they speed out of the neighborhod.
My 2 cents... he simply advertized he was going from Yellow to Orange.. and it was very effective.
------------------
Bubba
IDPA# A04739
====
It is long been a principal of ours that one is no more armed because he has possession of a firearm than he is a musician because he owns a piano. There is no point in having a gun if you are not capable of using it skillfully. - Jeff Cooper
Coinneach, it is a small world, I also live in the Springs. You are right, you will have to go to court and you will have to defend yourself sign or no sign. But have you thought what would happen if you had to shoot an intruder and the prosacuter said the man had no warning that you would shoot. If you can show a sign was posted you have just shown a legal warning. I have been advised to put up sign's to show I have dog's for liabilty's sake by Mr Anderson. Also if you go down and apply for your CCW permit they will give you a copy of the law's pertaining to where and when using a firearm to defend yourself or other's life or property is pirmissable, including the make my day law. Is the Case you mention the one where the women shot the man from an upstairs window over in black forest? If so she won that case.
Rew
Rew
Rew,
The Gershon case was as follows:
Black lady (Gina) had a KKK-type neighbor. Guy threatened to kill her several times; cops wouldn't do anything. Gina armed herself. A few days later, the neighbor tried to break down her door. She leaned out of her living room window and screamed at him to leave. He hit the door again, and she shot him.
Now, it seems obvious that the guy was an immediate threat, regardless of whether he was inside the house or not, as he was trying damned hard to get in. Gina had to spend somewhere around $100K defending herself in court. She won, but only after going through legal hell.
This is in direct contradiction of the law, which states that no one shall be prosecuted for using deadly force in defense of one's life or property.
She was not sued by the guy's family; they knew he had it coming.
Point is, "Make My Day" just doesn't work. People who defend themselves are still prosecuted and have to prove their innocence.
------------------
"America is at that awkward stage.
It's too late to work within the system,
but too early to start shooting the bastards."
--Claire Wolfe
The Gershon case was as follows:
Black lady (Gina) had a KKK-type neighbor. Guy threatened to kill her several times; cops wouldn't do anything. Gina armed herself. A few days later, the neighbor tried to break down her door. She leaned out of her living room window and screamed at him to leave. He hit the door again, and she shot him.
Now, it seems obvious that the guy was an immediate threat, regardless of whether he was inside the house or not, as he was trying damned hard to get in. Gina had to spend somewhere around $100K defending herself in court. She won, but only after going through legal hell.
This is in direct contradiction of the law, which states that no one shall be prosecuted for using deadly force in defense of one's life or property.
She was not sued by the guy's family; they knew he had it coming.
Point is, "Make My Day" just doesn't work. People who defend themselves are still prosecuted and have to prove their innocence.
------------------
"America is at that awkward stage.
It's too late to work within the system,
but too early to start shooting the bastards."
--Claire Wolfe
Mike in VA
New member
I guess it's just a sign of the times, and please don't take this as a flame, but is there anyone here who doesn't understand taht breaking & entering is a crime? Why should one even have to warn a criminal that if you break into my house it is at your own risk and that the consequences may be dire?
Geez. I mean I understand how some weenie lawyer might make the point that since you posted your property that you might be spoiling for a fight, but as Rob pointed out, you're not doing anything wrong, and indeed, may be doing the terminally stupid a service in reminding the dumb f*kker that what they are about to do is illegal and that they may face resistance/consequences?
I'm sorry, but this 'criminal as a victim' mentality makes me wanna puke. The basic notion of right and wrong just isn't that difficult, even in these PC times. How about suing the family of the perp for parental negligence, contributing to the production of a valuslees scumbag, felony stupid (thanks, Kodiac) and polluting the gene pool?
SPFD, M2 having a bad day
Geez. I mean I understand how some weenie lawyer might make the point that since you posted your property that you might be spoiling for a fight, but as Rob pointed out, you're not doing anything wrong, and indeed, may be doing the terminally stupid a service in reminding the dumb f*kker that what they are about to do is illegal and that they may face resistance/consequences?
I'm sorry, but this 'criminal as a victim' mentality makes me wanna puke. The basic notion of right and wrong just isn't that difficult, even in these PC times. How about suing the family of the perp for parental negligence, contributing to the production of a valuslees scumbag, felony stupid (thanks, Kodiac) and polluting the gene pool?
SPFD, M2 having a bad day
M2, that's my point exactly. Is it better to warn the goblin first, or to just knock him down?
Oh, well. The first thing a goblin who comes in my front door will see is my qualification target. If he doesn't get it then, he never will.
------------------
"America is at that awkward stage.
It's too late to work within the system,
but too early to start shooting the bastards."
--Claire Wolfe
Oh, well. The first thing a goblin who comes in my front door will see is my qualification target. If he doesn't get it then, he never will.
------------------
"America is at that awkward stage.
It's too late to work within the system,
but too early to start shooting the bastards."
--Claire Wolfe
Coinneach, Ya I remember the case. And I know it cost her to defend herself. I agree that is wrong. But at least we do have a law on the books saying we have the right to defend ourselves. Problem is, as I see it is the judeges and DA's in thes country are a law unto themselves. The lady should have never been prosacuted, but she was and she won under the "make my day" law. In FL where I grewup she would be in prison right now. The man was not in the house yet. As stupid as that sounds it's the law there. I could stand across the street and pour bullets into your house and all you can do is call the police. If you return fire you are at fault. I'm sorry but that is just stupid.
Rew
Rew
Coinneach:
You're probably better off without those particular signs, though the very though of a person's rejection of political correctness being used against him in court makes me absolutely sick. We do live in an overly litigious society. Until we somehow deal with that problem, such warning signs will be exploited to make a person appear to be patiently waiting someone to enter his trap - making a self defense shooting appear to be premeditated murder.
Try some generic signs, such as "Items of value are marked for easy identification" or a simple "No Trespassing" sign. It's okay to say "Stay Out", but the stuff like "Trespassers will be shot. Survivors will be shot again" is practically begging for trouble.
A neighbor of mine gets the message across, but in a much more subtle manner. In addition to his alarm company warning signs, he has a "used" paper pistol target laying on the rear package shelf of his car. Anyone walking up the driveway can see that tight group of .45 caliber holes. That's a bit different than buying a sign and posting it, yet *more* effective, in a way.
You're probably better off without those particular signs, though the very though of a person's rejection of political correctness being used against him in court makes me absolutely sick. We do live in an overly litigious society. Until we somehow deal with that problem, such warning signs will be exploited to make a person appear to be patiently waiting someone to enter his trap - making a self defense shooting appear to be premeditated murder.
Try some generic signs, such as "Items of value are marked for easy identification" or a simple "No Trespassing" sign. It's okay to say "Stay Out", but the stuff like "Trespassers will be shot. Survivors will be shot again" is practically begging for trouble.
A neighbor of mine gets the message across, but in a much more subtle manner. In addition to his alarm company warning signs, he has a "used" paper pistol target laying on the rear package shelf of his car. Anyone walking up the driveway can see that tight group of .45 caliber holes. That's a bit different than buying a sign and posting it, yet *more* effective, in a way.
Rob Pincus
New member
Jesse Ventura was on LArry King Tonight. He explained to larry why he needed guns:
"I enjoy shooting, I enjoy going to a range, we have a sign at our house that says, "We don't dial 911"
Guess it would be okay if you were in Minnesota
------------------
-Essayons
"I enjoy shooting, I enjoy going to a range, we have a sign at our house that says, "We don't dial 911"
Guess it would be okay if you were in Minnesota
------------------
-Essayons
I have signs up for my dogs to alert people that they are on the property., Now these are the evil politically incorrect apbt,....I originally just got dog on premises signs......after talking to others on a dog list im on and there experience with this problem, the signs had been used against them in court and the consesus was to use signs like the k9 officers use.....k9 dog on premises.................fwiw....fubsy.
Grayfox,
In 1970 or so, in Von Ormy, TX (just south of San Antonio), I saw a variation on your sign.
Somebody had painted an entire 4'x8' sheet of plywood a wonderful Kelly green. But before the green paint was dry they had lettered in white:
----------------------------
Trespassers WILL be shot at,
If missed, shot at again!
----------------------------
You could just tell "somebody" had reached the end of their rope!
In 1970 or so, in Von Ormy, TX (just south of San Antonio), I saw a variation on your sign.
Somebody had painted an entire 4'x8' sheet of plywood a wonderful Kelly green. But before the green paint was dry they had lettered in white:
----------------------------
Trespassers WILL be shot at,
If missed, shot at again!
----------------------------
You could just tell "somebody" had reached the end of their rope!
David's USP
New member
"I don't call 911" Tonight on Larry King Live Gov Jesse V. told hime that he has the same sign posted at his house.
David
David
rabbit assassin
Moderator
NSW has good anti home invasion laws
John Tingle Shooters Party MLC introduced this into NSW Parliament and it was passed.
(note:unlike One Nation, the Shooters Party does get laws passed) Not as tough as we wanted but better than anywhere else in Australia. The government wants to consider extending it to business premises.
An important point.
"the occupant believes on reasonable grounds that it is necessary to do so." that is very important, the police have to prove that you didn't believe what you did was reasonable, the onus of proof is now on the police and not the victim(ie the home owner)
http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/nsw/consol_act/hipa1998381/ read it here
or better yet below, i posted it because I know most people wont go to the link and this is important to show what Shooters can achieve.
HOME INVASION (OCCUPANTS PROTECTION) ACT 1998
3 Definitions
In this Act:
confrontation with an intruder means a confrontation with an intruder in which
physical force is used dwelling-house includes:
(a) any building or other structure occupied as a dwelling, and
(b) any building or other structure within the same curtilage as a
dwelling-house, and occupied in connection with the dwelling-house or
whose use is ancillary to the occupation of the dwelling-house.
intruder has the meaning given in section 4. occupant of a dwelling-house
includes an owner, lessee and landlord of the dwelling-house and any person
invited into the dwelling-house.
4 Who is an intruder?
A person is an intruder for the purposes of this Act if:
(a) the person makes an unlawful entry into a dwelling-house, and
(b) an occupant of the dwelling-house believes that the person, in
addition to the unlawful entry, has committed, or is committing, a
crime in the dwelling-house against an occupant of the dwelling-house
or the property of, or within, the dwelling-house. Part 2 Use of force
to prevent attack
5 Safety within homes
Parliament expressly declares that it is the public policy of the State of New
South Wales that its citizens have a right to enjoy absolute safety from
attack within dwelling-houses from intruders.
6 Self-defence
An occupant of a dwelling-house may act in self-defence against an intruder if
the occupant believes on reasonable grounds that it is necessary to do so.
7 Defence of other persons
An occupant of a dwelling-house may act in defence of any other person in the
dwelling-house against an intruder if the occupant believes on reasonable
grounds that it is necessary to do so.
8 Defence of property
An occupant of a dwelling-house may act in defence of any property of, or
within, the dwelling-house against an intruder if the occupant believes on
reasonable grounds that it is necessary to do so.
9 Reasonable grounds
Whether grounds are reasonable grounds for the purposes of section 6 , 7 or 8
is to be determined having regard to the belief of the occupant, based on the
circumstances as the occupant perceived them to be.
10 Onus of proof in criminal proceedings
If in proceedings against an occupant of a dwelling-house the occupant seeks
to rely on the provisions of section 6, 7 or 8, the prosecution has the onus
of proving, beyond reasonable doubt:
(a) that the occupant did not have the belief alleged, or
(b) that the grounds for the occupant's belief were not reasonable
grounds. Part 3 Criminal and civil liability
11 Immunity from criminal liability
(1) An occupant of a dwelling-house who acts in accordance with section 6, 7
or 8 is immune from criminal liability resulting from his or her acts.
(2) If proceedings are commenced against an occupant accused of a crime as a
result of a confrontation with an intruder, the occupant must be brought
before the court, whether by way of preliminary hearing or otherwise, within 9
months after the proceedings are commenced. However, the 9-month period is to
be extended by the length of any delay that is attributable to the occupant.
12 Immunity from civil liability
An occupant of a dwelling-house who acts in accordance with section 6 , 7 or
8 is immune from civil liability resulting from his or her acts. An occupant
of a dwelling-house who acts in accordance with section 6 , 7 or 8 is immune
from civil liability resulting from his or her acts.
------------------
FREE Gun and Hunting Ezine at www.gun-center.com
John Tingle Shooters Party MLC introduced this into NSW Parliament and it was passed.
(note:unlike One Nation, the Shooters Party does get laws passed) Not as tough as we wanted but better than anywhere else in Australia. The government wants to consider extending it to business premises.
An important point.
"the occupant believes on reasonable grounds that it is necessary to do so." that is very important, the police have to prove that you didn't believe what you did was reasonable, the onus of proof is now on the police and not the victim(ie the home owner)
http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/nsw/consol_act/hipa1998381/ read it here
or better yet below, i posted it because I know most people wont go to the link and this is important to show what Shooters can achieve.
HOME INVASION (OCCUPANTS PROTECTION) ACT 1998
3 Definitions
In this Act:
confrontation with an intruder means a confrontation with an intruder in which
physical force is used dwelling-house includes:
(a) any building or other structure occupied as a dwelling, and
(b) any building or other structure within the same curtilage as a
dwelling-house, and occupied in connection with the dwelling-house or
whose use is ancillary to the occupation of the dwelling-house.
intruder has the meaning given in section 4. occupant of a dwelling-house
includes an owner, lessee and landlord of the dwelling-house and any person
invited into the dwelling-house.
4 Who is an intruder?
A person is an intruder for the purposes of this Act if:
(a) the person makes an unlawful entry into a dwelling-house, and
(b) an occupant of the dwelling-house believes that the person, in
addition to the unlawful entry, has committed, or is committing, a
crime in the dwelling-house against an occupant of the dwelling-house
or the property of, or within, the dwelling-house. Part 2 Use of force
to prevent attack
5 Safety within homes
Parliament expressly declares that it is the public policy of the State of New
South Wales that its citizens have a right to enjoy absolute safety from
attack within dwelling-houses from intruders.
6 Self-defence
An occupant of a dwelling-house may act in self-defence against an intruder if
the occupant believes on reasonable grounds that it is necessary to do so.
7 Defence of other persons
An occupant of a dwelling-house may act in defence of any other person in the
dwelling-house against an intruder if the occupant believes on reasonable
grounds that it is necessary to do so.
8 Defence of property
An occupant of a dwelling-house may act in defence of any property of, or
within, the dwelling-house against an intruder if the occupant believes on
reasonable grounds that it is necessary to do so.
9 Reasonable grounds
Whether grounds are reasonable grounds for the purposes of section 6 , 7 or 8
is to be determined having regard to the belief of the occupant, based on the
circumstances as the occupant perceived them to be.
10 Onus of proof in criminal proceedings
If in proceedings against an occupant of a dwelling-house the occupant seeks
to rely on the provisions of section 6, 7 or 8, the prosecution has the onus
of proving, beyond reasonable doubt:
(a) that the occupant did not have the belief alleged, or
(b) that the grounds for the occupant's belief were not reasonable
grounds. Part 3 Criminal and civil liability
11 Immunity from criminal liability
(1) An occupant of a dwelling-house who acts in accordance with section 6, 7
or 8 is immune from criminal liability resulting from his or her acts.
(2) If proceedings are commenced against an occupant accused of a crime as a
result of a confrontation with an intruder, the occupant must be brought
before the court, whether by way of preliminary hearing or otherwise, within 9
months after the proceedings are commenced. However, the 9-month period is to
be extended by the length of any delay that is attributable to the occupant.
12 Immunity from civil liability
An occupant of a dwelling-house who acts in accordance with section 6 , 7 or
8 is immune from civil liability resulting from his or her acts. An occupant
of a dwelling-house who acts in accordance with section 6 , 7 or 8 is immune
from civil liability resulting from his or her acts.
------------------
FREE Gun and Hunting Ezine at www.gun-center.com
Rabbit,
I am surprised! That is a VERY strong law, especially in reference to protecting property. However, without being sarcastic, if the government gives you the right to protect yourself, etc., but the government also outlaws guns and knives, what are you going to use as a weapon?
More importantly, what can a 120 pound pregnant lady use to protect herself against several nasty buggers intent on mayhem?
It sounds to me like the government says, "You can bite, but you can't use teeth!"
Dennis
I am surprised! That is a VERY strong law, especially in reference to protecting property. However, without being sarcastic, if the government gives you the right to protect yourself, etc., but the government also outlaws guns and knives, what are you going to use as a weapon?
More importantly, what can a 120 pound pregnant lady use to protect herself against several nasty buggers intent on mayhem?
It sounds to me like the government says, "You can bite, but you can't use teeth!"
Dennis
Dennis, I love it! (bitches on beaches)
I bought an "Insured by Glock" bumper sticker awhile back, but I never put it on the car because I don't want LEOs getting worked up if I get stopped. Plus it's an invitation to break into the car to get the guns. Coinneach, YES, there will be an ATTEMPT to paint you that way if you're charged with a crime, without a doubt. Whether the jury buys it - depends on where you live and what kind of jury fate hands you.
Rob is right - if your only question is "what action will do the most to save ME in court - civil and criminal - rest of the world be damned", then take down the signs. If your question is "what action will do the most to promote and preserve our rights, while having a potential small adverse impact on my legal liability", then leave 'em up - I agree with the philoshophy that we need to "get the word out" by being as vocal and visible as possible in spreading the message that guns are good because of their strong utility.
[This message has been edited by Futo Inu (edited June 04, 1999).]
I bought an "Insured by Glock" bumper sticker awhile back, but I never put it on the car because I don't want LEOs getting worked up if I get stopped. Plus it's an invitation to break into the car to get the guns. Coinneach, YES, there will be an ATTEMPT to paint you that way if you're charged with a crime, without a doubt. Whether the jury buys it - depends on where you live and what kind of jury fate hands you.
Rob is right - if your only question is "what action will do the most to save ME in court - civil and criminal - rest of the world be damned", then take down the signs. If your question is "what action will do the most to promote and preserve our rights, while having a potential small adverse impact on my legal liability", then leave 'em up - I agree with the philoshophy that we need to "get the word out" by being as vocal and visible as possible in spreading the message that guns are good because of their strong utility.
[This message has been edited by Futo Inu (edited June 04, 1999).]
Futo,
Come to think of it, last time I was pulled over, I had two bumper stickers on my truck:
"Fight Crime: Shoot Back" and
"Driver Carries Only $20 Worth of Ammunition"
I figured the cop would guess that I was carrying, so I brought up the subject first.
Now I just have an old Libertarian Party sticker and a Rocky Mountain Gun Owners sticker. Little less, uh, inflammatory.
As far as juries, I'm not overly concerned. Colorado Springs is getting disgusted with criminals and the inability of the police to deal with them, and the local fishwrap is *very* pro-gun. I just hope it never gets to that point.
------------------
"America is at that awkward stage.
It's too late to work within the system,
but too early to start shooting the bastards."
--Claire Wolfe
Come to think of it, last time I was pulled over, I had two bumper stickers on my truck:
"Fight Crime: Shoot Back" and
"Driver Carries Only $20 Worth of Ammunition"
I figured the cop would guess that I was carrying, so I brought up the subject first.
Now I just have an old Libertarian Party sticker and a Rocky Mountain Gun Owners sticker. Little less, uh, inflammatory.
As far as juries, I'm not overly concerned. Colorado Springs is getting disgusted with criminals and the inability of the police to deal with them, and the local fishwrap is *very* pro-gun. I just hope it never gets to that point.
------------------
"America is at that awkward stage.
It's too late to work within the system,
but too early to start shooting the bastards."
--Claire Wolfe