> Anyone got any good ideas for booby traps around my jeep. S
A prison term for you will be the answer. Don't do it. Buy a video
camera.
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----
I would think twice before shooting somebody for taking my radio out of my
Jeep. Perhaps you need an alarm, or a garage.
>
> I would think twice before shooting somebody for taking my radio out of my
> Jeep.
Legal in Texas.
Snow...
"kevin" <ke...@el.net> wrote in message
news:JVp2b.254585$o%2.116759@sccrnsc02...
"kevin" <ke...@el.net> wrote in message
news:JVp2b.254585$o%2.116759@sccrnsc02...
> As for the comment
> below about being "legal in Texas", I can assure that depending upon the DA,
> chances are you're going to trial.. And in my opinion, rightfully so.
Yes, dependant on the DA. But this scenario is fairly common with no
charges at all.
"kevin" <ke...@el.net> wrote in message
news:JVp2b.254585$o%2.116759@sccrnsc02...
Check your state laws, but I believe you'll find that *no*
state allows unattended booby traps. And using lethal force
when life isn't endangered is also usually a no-no, although
this varies by state.
--
Bob C.
Reply to Bob-Casanova @ worldnet.att.net
(without the spaces, of course)
"The most exciting phrase to hear in science,
the one that heralds new discoveries, is not
'Eureka!' but 'That's funny...'"
- Isaac Asimov
Bob Casanova wrote:
> On Mon, 25 Aug 2003 15:27:38 GMT, the following appeared in
> rec.autos.makers.jeep+willys, posted by kevin
> <ke...@el.net>:
>
> Check your state laws, but I believe you'll find that *no*
> state allows unattended booby traps. And using lethal force
> when life isn't endangered is also usually a no-no, although
> this varies by state.
--
___________________________________________________________
tw
03 TJ Rubicon
01 XJ Sport
There is a very fine line between "hobby" and "mental illness."
-- Dave Barry
http://www.7slotgrille.com/jeepers/tj/twaldron/index.html
(Please remove the OBVIOUS to reply by email)
___________________________________________________________
http://www.cnn.com/WORLD/africa/9812/11/flame.thrower.car/
Dave Milne, Scotland
'99 TJ 4.0 Sahara
"Bob Casanova" <nos...@buzz.off> wrote in message
news:kptkkvcunntme7508...@4ax.com...
: On Mon, 25 Aug 2003 15:27:38 GMT, the following appeared in
> Which state allows using deadly force when life isn't endangered???
Texas.
Jeepers wrote:
--
"twaldron" <twal...@sbcOBVIOUSglobal.net> wrote in message
news:%Vu2b.3550$UW7....@newssvr22.news.prodigy.com...
> BS. Next?
Chapter 9 of the Texas Penal code. Look it up for yourself.
The use of deadly force is justified when you believe that deadly force
is immediately necessary to prevent the imminent commission of arson,
burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, theft during the night or
criminal mischief during the night.
The use of deadly force is justified when you believe that deadly force
is immediately necessary to prevent a person fleeing after committing
burglary, robbery, or aggravated robbery.
The use of deadly force is justified when you believe that deadly force
is immediately necessary to prevent a person from fleeing with the
property after committing theft during the night and you also believe
that the land or property cannot be protected or recovered by any other
means.
The use of deadly force is justified when use of force other than force
would expose you to death or serious bodily injury.
Use of Deadly Force in Defense of a Third Person's Property
The use of deadly force is justified in defense of a third person's
property if you believe that the owner of the property requested the
protection, you have a legal duty to protect the property or you are
protecting the property of your spouse, parent or child under your
supervision.
The use of deadly force is NOT justified in defense of a third person's
property if you would not be justified in using deadly force to protect
your own property under the same circumstances.
> Maybe at night, I don't think you can shoot someone for stealing the
> milk bottle off your front porch in broad daylight and running away.
Exactly. Night is the key.
Booby traps are just plain stoopid, unless it is the sort that sets off
a hidden video camera or alarm.
My 2 cents.
> I can almost understand if someone is stealing to feed their family (milk,
> bread, etc). But you can't feed jeep parts to your son. That guy should be
> shot in the back.
>
> My 2 cents.
Your 2 cents equals murder.
Dave Milne, Scotland
'99 TJ 4.0 Sahara
"Jeepers" <moo...@INVALIDfnbnet.net> wrote in message
news:moomesa-6CBA4D...@corp.newsfeeds.com...
: In article <1kv2b.34498$la.4...@news1.calgary.shaw.ca>,
> sure it's murder, but its easy to avoid .. don't steal other people's jeeps.
> I think that's the real point - society focuses on the penalty without
> focusing enough on how easy it is to avoid the penalty. And if you shoot the
> postman who was not about to steal the jeep but just standing next to it
> admiring it, then you should get shot in the back.
I'll give you that.
Damn it, you beat me to it. :0)
--
<html><form><input type crash></form></html>
nos...@zero.com Replace nospam with jetta to reply via e-mail
I do know that there is much more leniency in regard to deadly force for
the victim, if the crime is committed at night.
Jeepers wrote:
--
JeepTJ wrote:
--
"kevin" <ke...@el.net> wrote in message
news:JVp2b.254585$o%2.116759@sccrnsc02...
Dave Milne, Scotland
'99 TJ 4.0 Sahara
"L.W. (ßill) Hughes III" <billh...@cox.net> wrote in message
news:3F4A8502...@cox.net...
: That Quicktime movie is sooo cool.
"Dave Milne" <jeep@_nospam_milne.info> wrote in message
news:kOu2b.4329$5L.41...@news-text.cableinet.net...
Dave Milne, Scotland
'99 TJ 4.0 Sahara
"Shamus in CO" <as...@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:yxednTAVW7b...@comcast.com...
: Looks cool, but I bet it's hell on your paint job!
: >
: >
:
:
>Anyone got any good ideas for booby traps around my jeep. Some thugs
>tried to rip it off the other night. They could not steal it because I
>have the grant removeable steering wheel. They cut the top and ruined
>it, took the side windows, a simpson 5 point harness, they got the upper
>doors, and had the drivers side door lifted half way off of the hinges.
>They also got seat cover for the bucket seat, and my air compressor. My
>105 lb lab who lives in the house heard them and started raising hell
>when i let her out in the back yard. They must have been scared off when
>they heard her. I got my 12 gauge pump ( loaded with # 1 buck), and 45
>Glock and went out but saw no one. Looking for ideas for trip wire traps
>using mouse traps,clothes pins ets, to trip an audio alarm, 12 gauge
>shell , or whatever it takes.
Yeah a good alarm... I had one installed on mine -- it also has two
proximity detectors -- you can't get within three feet of it without
it giving a quick warning chirp.. Stand close to it for more then 10
seconds it will go into full alarm -- and if I'm within a 1/4mile it
sets of the key-remote for it and I'll know -- tells me if it's
someone beside it -- inside it, if the doors are open, if the hood
is open... Several 4x4's have had parts ripped off them in my
area ...
Oddly nothing has ever wandered away from it... I don't even think
twice about leaving it alone with the top down, doors on sitting
unlocked...
"Jeepers" <moo...@INVALIDfnbnet.net> wrote in message
news:moomesa-52C2F5...@corp.newsfeeds.com...
"Jeepers" <moo...@INVALIDfnbnet.net> wrote in message
news:moomesa-6CBA4D...@corp.newsfeeds.com...
Earle
"Richard Harris" <SHAR...@san.rr.com> wrote in message
news:VOx2b.5196$uZ6.3...@twister.socal.rr.com...
> I'm not a lawyer, but I think you'd be hard pressed to find a case where
> someone was shot and killed, not threatening bodily harm and committing
> a theft, for instance, during the daytime and the shooter wasn't charged.
>
> I do know that there is much more leniency in regard to deadly force for
> the victim, if the crime is committed at night.
Take this over to tx.guns or rec.guns or talk.politics.guns and see what
you get.
As I said before, daylight IS key.
Which Alarm did you use? I have a couple vehicles that I want to put alarms
in. Someone even got into my S10 pickup that has the door handles shaved
off. They never broke a window or anything and no signs of forced entry.
Chris
--
A: Because it disturbs the logical flow of the message.
Q: Why is top posting frowned upon?
What brand alarm is that? Sounds good for what i'm looking for.
Don W
Heard the same about fish hooks... some nice treble hooks placed
appropriately and the perp will still be there when you come out,
screaming "Don't hurt me, man!". At least, that's the story I heard.
__
Steve
.
Steve Cowell wrote:
> Heard the same about fish hooks... some nice treble hooks placed
> appropriately and the perp will still be there when you come out,
> screaming "Don't hurt me, man!". At least, that's the story I heard.
--
RB
"Jeepers" <moo...@INVALIDfnbnet.net> wrote in message
news:moomesa-52C2F5...@corp.newsfeeds.com...
> In article <zEr2b.3135$3E....@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net>,
> "YJ" <Jeepa...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
> > As for the comment
> > below about being "legal in Texas", I can assure that depending upon the
DA,
> > chances are you're going to trial.. And in my opinion, rightfully so.
>
> Yes, dependant on the DA. But this scenario is fairly common with no
> charges at all.
>
>
Not murder in Texas if the thief has your property or is trying to take your
property.
BS yourself! Here is a snippet straight off of the Texas Penal Code,
available for your perusal at
http://www.capitol.state.tx.us/statutes/pe/pe0000900.html#pe010.9.32
SUBCHAPTER D. PROTECTION OF PROPERTY
§ 9.41. Protection of One's Own Property
(a) A person in lawful possession of land or tangible, movable property is
justified in using force against another when and to the degree the actor
reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to prevent or
terminate the other's trespass on the land or unlawful interference with the
property.
(b) A person unlawfully dispossessed of land or tangible, movable property
by another is justified in using force against the other when and to the
degree the actor reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to
reenter the land or recover the property if the actor uses the force
immediately or in fresh pursuit after the dispossession and:
(1) the actor reasonably believes the other had no claim of right when he
dispossessed the actor; or
(2) the other accomplished the dispossession by using force, threat, or
fraud against the actor.
Acts 1973, 63rd Leg., p. 883, ch. 399, § 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1974. Amended by
Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 900, § 1.01, eff. Sept. 1, 1994.
§ 9.42. Deadly Force to Protect Property
A person is justified in using deadly force against another to protect land
or tangible, movable property:
(1) if he would be justified in using force against the other under Section
9.41; and
(2) when and to the degree he reasonably believes the deadly force is
immediately necessary:
(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
(3) he reasonably believes that:
(A) the land or property cannot be protected or recovered by any other
means; or
(B) the use of force other than deadly force to protect or recover the land
or property would expose the actor or another to a substantial risk of death
or serious bodily injury.
Acts 1973, 63rd Leg., p. 883, ch. 399, § 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1974. Amended by
Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 900, § 1.01, eff. Sept. 1, 1994.
"Russ B" <gofast@REMOVE_THIStexoma.net> wrote in message
news:biehc...@enews3.newsguy.com...
Viper 790XV With two proximity sesors added.. It's quite an
impressive system ...
I'm not a resident of Commiefornia but have to live here, love the place
geographically, and most of the people, but I can't wait to leave beacuse of
lack of FREEDOM granted by the constitution. (I know this will stir up a
shit storm)
"L.W. (ßill) Hughes III" <billh...@cox.net> wrote in message
news:3F4ADB63...@cox.net...
Just a few years back, it came to light that under Texas law
possession of wire cutters was a capital offense as well, shooting a
man and your wife if you caught them in bed together was justifiable
homicide, etc. Somewhere there has to be a web site with a collection
of these atiquated laws because I see reports of some wierd laws all
the time - and not just from Texas.
--
Will Honea <who...@codenet.net>
Buy some foot/leg traps for medium sized animals like fox and coyote! They
only have to be check every 24 hours per trapping regulations. :-)
When one of those pesky "animals" gets it paw caught, not only will the dog
hear'em but so will you, and about half the neighborhood .<G>
Brian
Somewhere there has to be a web site with a collection
> of these atiquated laws because I see reports of some wierd laws all
> the time - and not just from Texas.
>
Yep there is!
I surprised that I beat "Linkmaster L.W." to this one!
Brian
But iffy at best. A friend of mine was awakened by someone stealing bricks
(yes, BRICKS) from his yard. He leaned out the window and put a 30.06
through the guys head. That stopped the theft. He almost bankrupted himself
with lawyers fees to get out of it. The big thing in Texas is if the sun has
gone down. Thats the rub. Dark, you're probably OK, with lawyers fees....
Daylight, only if your life is endangered.
"twaldron" <twal...@sbcOBVIOUSglobal.net> wrote in message
news:TMu2b.3547$UW7....@newssvr22.news.prodigy.com...
> Which state allows using deadly force when life isn't endangered???
>
> Bob Casanova wrote:
>
> > On Mon, 25 Aug 2003 15:27:38 GMT, the following appeared in
> > rec.autos.makers.jeep+willys, posted by kevin
> > <ke...@el.net>:
> >
> > Check your state laws, but I believe you'll find that *no*
> > state allows unattended booby traps. And using lethal force
> > when life isn't endangered is also usually a no-no, although
> > this varies by state.
>
"Richard Harris" <SHAR...@san.rr.com> wrote in message
news:VOx2b.5196$uZ6.3...@twister.socal.rr.com...
"Dave Milne" <jeep@_nospam_milne.info> wrote in message
news:kOu2b.4329$5L.41...@news-text.cableinet.net...
> I'm sure you could wire a sensor to trip one of these ...
>
> http://www.cnn.com/WORLD/africa/9812/11/flame.thrower.car/
>
>
> Dave Milne, Scotland
> '99 TJ 4.0 Sahara
>
> "Bob Casanova" <nos...@buzz.off> wrote in message
> news:kptkkvcunntme7508...@4ax.com...
> : On Mon, 25 Aug 2003 15:27:38 GMT, the following appeared in
> : rec.autos.makers.jeep+willys, posted by kevin
> : <ke...@el.net>:
> :
> : Check your state laws, but I believe you'll find that *no*
> : state allows unattended booby traps. And using lethal force
> : when life isn't endangered is also usually a no-no, although
> : this varies by state.
> :
> : >Anyone got any good ideas for booby traps around my jeep. Some thugs
> : >tried to rip it off the other night. They could not steal it because I
> : >have the grant removeable steering wheel. They cut the top and ruined
> : >it, took the side windows, a simpson 5 point harness, they got the
upper
> : >doors, and had the drivers side door lifted half way off of the hinges.
> : >They also got seat cover for the bucket seat, and my air compressor. My
> : >105 lb lab who lives in the house heard them and started raising hell
> : >when i let her out in the back yard. They must have been scared off
when
> : >they heard her. I got my 12 gauge pump ( loaded with # 1 buck), and 45
> : >Glock and went out but saw no one. Looking for ideas for trip wire
traps
> : >using mouse traps,clothes pins ets, to trip an audio alarm, 12 gauge
> : >shell , or whatever it takes.
> :
"Russ B" <gofast@REMOVE_THIStexoma.net> wrote in message
news:biehc...@enews3.newsguy.com...
"Will Honea" <who...@codenet.net> wrote in message
news:JxX2tWiP5BNp-p...@anon.none.net...
Learn to read.
Off topic. Take it to tx.guns.
I am a Texas CHL Holder. I had to test to get it. This is part of the
test.
It is regularly in the news.
> (1) if he would be justified in using force against the other under Section
> 9.41; and
>
>
>
> (2) when and to the degree he reasonably believes the deadly force is
> immediately necessary:
>
>
>
> (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
>
>
>
> (3) he reasonably believes that:
>
>
>
> (A) the land or property cannot be protected or recovered by any other
> means; or
> BS yourself! Here is a snippet straight off of the Texas Penal Code,
> available for your perusal at
> http://www.capitol.state.tx.us/statutes/pe/pe0000900.html#pe010.9.32
>
> SUBCHAPTER D. PROTECTION OF PROPERTY
Ignore my reply. I doofused the wrong poster. Doh!
If it turns out he is dangerous, perhaps. But one has to live with the
shooting decision.
> RB,
> and your a Native American?????
Naw, he's TEXAN. We were a country once.
> In Texas as the rest of the west there once was a time when you hung from
> a
> > tree for stealing a horse.
They don't hang for long.
(B) the use of force other than deadly force to protect or recover the
land or property would expose the actor or another to a substantial risk
of death or serious bodily injury.
So, the BS stands.
Russ B wrote:
--