Jeep Booby Traps Help
kevin
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.
Jeepers
wrote:
> 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! =-----
Jeff Strickland
additional traps.
Jeff Strickland
"kevin" <ke...@el.net> wrote in message
news:JVp2b.254585$o%2.116759@sccrnsc02...
I would think twice before shooting somebody for taking my radio out of my
Jeep. Perhaps you need an alarm, or a garage.
>
Jeepers
"Jeff Strickland" <bee...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> I would think twice before shooting somebody for taking my radio out of my
> Jeep.
Legal in Texas.
Snow
tries to steal it". But you could wire up the horns to the door handles and
other places, so when certain "booby trapped" items are touched the horns
start blowing. You just have to install a small override switch to disable
the system.
Snow...
"kevin" <ke...@el.net> wrote in message
news:JVp2b.254585$o%2.116759@sccrnsc02...
YJ
in a safe secure spot and forget the vigilante bullshit. 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.
"kevin" <ke...@el.net> wrote in message
news:JVp2b.254585$o%2.116759@sccrnsc02...
L.W. Hughes III
mortal danger, therefore it would be justifiable homicide! I can't wait
to vote these bleeding heart liberals out of Kalifornia.
God Bless America, ßill O|||||||O
mailto:LWHug...@aol.com http://www.billhughes.com/
Jeepers
"YJ" <Jeepa...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> As for the comment
> below about being "legal in Texas", I can assure that depending upon the DA,
> chances are you're going to trial.. And in my opinion, rightfully so.
Yes, dependant on the DA. But this scenario is fairly common with no
charges at all.
jdarg
"kevin" <ke...@el.net> wrote in message
news:JVp2b.254585$o%2.116759@sccrnsc02...
Bob Casanova
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.
--
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
twaldron
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)
___________________________________________________________
Dave Milne
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
Jeepers
twaldron <twal...@sbcOBVIOUSglobal.net> wrote:
> Which state allows using deadly force when life isn't endangered???
Texas.
twaldron
Jeepers wrote:
--
herman
"twaldron" <twal...@sbcOBVIOUSglobal.net> wrote in message
news:%Vu2b.3550$UW7....@newssvr22.news.prodigy.com...
Jeepers
twaldron <twal...@sbcOBVIOUSglobal.net> wrote:
> 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.
twaldron
milk bottle off your front porch in broad daylight and running away.
Jeepers
twaldron <twal...@sbcOBVIOUSglobal.net> wrote:
> 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.
JeepTJ
bread, etc). But you can't feed jeep parts to your son. That guy should be
shot in the back.
My 2 cents.
Jeepers
"JeepTJ" <jee...@shaw.caNOSPAM> wrote:
> 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
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.
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>,
Jeepers
"Dave Milne" <jeep@_nospam_milne.info> wrote:
> 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.
L.W. Hughes III
Peter Parker
Jeepers <moo...@INVALIDfnbnet.net> wrote:
>In article <vkkdf6m...@corp.supernews.com>,
> "Jeff Strickland" <bee...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> I would think twice before shooting somebody for taking my radio out of my
>> Jeep.
>
>Legal in Texas.
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
twaldron
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.
Jeepers wrote:
--
twaldron
want to be the one pulling the trigger if there is no physical threat.
JeepTJ wrote:
--
Joe
the perp reaches in to pull the radio out he gets one hell of a boo-boo...
"kevin" <ke...@el.net> wrote in message
news:JVp2b.254585$o%2.116759@sccrnsc02...
Dave Milne
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.
Shamus in CO
Probably would melt your soft windows too!
"Dave Milne" <jeep@_nospam_milne.info> wrote in message
news:kOu2b.4329$5L.41...@news-text.cableinet.net...
Dave Milne
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!
: >
: >
:
:
Chris
>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...
Richard Harris
No harm done to the jeep, and your vandals are vapor.
(I'm only KIDDING!!!!!!!!) But I know how you feel, I'd want to kill someone
too. You'd be better off catching the culprits and let the law take care of
it. Unless of course your in Commiefornia where the criminals have all the
rights and the victim, well "you shouldn't have parked there!"
Rich
"Jeepers" <moo...@INVALIDfnbnet.net> wrote in message
news:moomesa-52C2F5...@corp.newsfeeds.com...
Richard Harris
tree for stealing a horse.....Not too many horses got stolen either.......
"Jeepers" <moo...@INVALIDfnbnet.net> wrote in message
news:moomesa-6CBA4D...@corp.newsfeeds.com...
Earle Horton
the place, pushed a car into the grease pit, broke some windshields, and
stole a bunch of tools. On the way home one of them drove off the road and
hit a tree about twelve feet from the ground. He was dead instantly
according to the cops, with tools I recognized spread all over the place.
His family left town soon after. Some times, the bad guy gets what he
deserves.
Earle
"Richard Harris" <SHAR...@san.rr.com> wrote in message
news:VOx2b.5196$uZ6.3...@twister.socal.rr.com...
Richard Harris
"Earle Horton" <enfermero...@registerednurses.com> wrote in message
news:bie9uu$8c2m8$1...@ID-147790.news.uni-berlin.de...
Jeepers
twaldron <twal...@sbcOBVIOUSglobal.net> wrote:
> I'm not a lawyer, but I think you'd be hard pressed to find a case where
> someone was shot and killed, not threatening bodily harm and committing
> a theft, for instance, during the daytime and the shooter wasn't charged.
>
> I do know that there is much more leniency in regard to deadly force for
> the victim, if the crime is committed at night.
Take this over to tx.guns or rec.guns or talk.politics.guns and see what
you get.
As I said before, daylight IS key.
c
news:5g8lkv869d3h8bhro...@4ax.com...
Which Alarm did you use? I have a couple vehicles that I want to put alarms
in. Someone even got into my S10 pickup that has the door handles shaved
off. They never broke a window or anything and no signs of forced entry.
Chris
--
A: Because it disturbs the logical flow of the message.
Q: Why is top posting frowned upon?
Don Wallish
> twice about leaving it alone with the top down, doors on sitting
> unlocked...
What brand alarm is that? Sounds good for what i'm looking for.
Don W
Steve Cowell
"Joe" <jo_r...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:eXv2b.9687$jY2....@newsread1.news.atl.earthlink.net...
> had a friend in NYC who taped razor blades to the back of his radio. When
> the perp reaches in to pull the radio out he gets one hell of a boo-boo...
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
.
twaldron
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.
--
Russ B
down. Too many people these days have ZERO respect for other people's
property. Sure the DA MIGHT try to charge you, but in most cases you'll
walk if you use lethal force to prevent a crime of this type...My main
concern is that all the yankees, criminals, and foreigners will get our laws
changed.
RB
"Jeepers" <moo...@INVALIDfnbnet.net> wrote in message
news:moomesa-52C2F5...@corp.newsfeeds.com...
> In article <zEr2b.3135$3E....@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net>,
> "YJ" <Jeepa...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
> > As for the comment
> > below about being "legal in Texas", I can assure that depending upon the
DA,
> > chances are you're going to trial.. And in my opinion, rightfully so.
>
> Yes, dependant on the DA. But this scenario is fairly common with no
> charges at all.
>
>
Russ B
"Jeepers" <moo...@INVALIDfnbnet.net> wrote in message
> In article <1kv2b.34498$la.4...@news1.calgary.shaw.ca>,
> "JeepTJ" <jee...@shaw.caNOSPAM> wrote:
>
> > 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.
>
Not murder in Texas if the thief has your property or is trying to take your
property.
Russ B
"twaldron" <twal...@sbcOBVIOUSglobal.net> wrote in message
news:%Vu2b.3550$UW7....@newssvr22.news.prodigy.com...
> BS. Next?
>
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.
L.W. Hughes III
they look like they have Tetanus lock jaw, blood poisoning all over
them. :-) Maybe I should buy a fishing license to make it look innocent.
Richard Harris
and your a Native American?????
"Russ B" <gofast@REMOVE_THIStexoma.net> wrote in message
news:biehc...@enews3.newsguy.com...
L.W. Hughes III
I use to be able to shoot from my back door, now nothing more than a
shotgun may be fired anywhere west of interstate 15 in San Diego county.
I can't wait to vote the bleeding heart liberals out!
Chris
>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.
Viper 790XV With two proximity sesors added.. It's quite an
impressive system ...
Richard Harris
West of the 15 there really isn't much room to shoot.
There are ranges but the who wants to shoot like that all the time. Too bad
we can't even own weapons like AK's and other auto weaps. Like they say
"outlaw weapons and only outlaws will own them" or "you'll have to pry it
out of my cold dead hands"......
Rich
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...
Will Honea
point that at the time this was the common practice pretty much all
over the West, stealing a man's horse WAS a life threatening event
given the distances and climate involved.
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>
bulletsnbrains
"Bob Casanova" <nos...@buzz.off> wrote in message
news:kptkkvcunntme7508...@4ax.com...
> 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.
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
bulletsnbrains
"Will Honea" <who...@codenet.net> wrote in message
news:JxX2tWiP5BNp-p...@anon.none.net...
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
YJ
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.
>
YJ
"Richard Harris" <SHAR...@san.rr.com> wrote in message
news:VOx2b.5196$uZ6.3...@twister.socal.rr.com...
YJ
effective on the apes posing as humans in South Africa.
"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.
> :
Joe
"Russ B" <gofast@REMOVE_THIStexoma.net> wrote in message
news:biehc...@enews3.newsguy.com...
Joe
justifiable
homicide"
their husbands if this was allowed.
"Will Honea" <who...@codenet.net> wrote in message
news:JxX2tWiP5BNp-p...@anon.none.net...
Jeepers
"Russ B" <gofast@REMOVE_THIStexoma.net> wrote:
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
Jeepers
"Russ B" <gofast@REMOVE_THIStexoma.net> wrote:
> 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!
Jeepers
"Russ B" <gofast@REMOVE_THIStexoma.net> wrote:
If it turns out he is dangerous, perhaps. But one has to live with the
shooting decision.
Jeepers
"Richard Harris" <SHAR...@san.rr.com> wrote:
> RB,
> and your a Native American?????
Naw, he's TEXAN. We were a country once.
Jeepers
"YJ" <Jeepa...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> 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.
twaldron
deadly force is permittable against another person where no personal
threat is present. In fact, it specifically state that:
(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:
--
twaldron
twaldron
YJ wrote:
--
twaldron
Russ B wrote:
> If more of us Texans would shoot these assholes, the crime rate would go
> down. Too many people these days have ZERO respect for other people's
> property. Sure the DA MIGHT try to charge you, but in most cases you'll
> walk if you use lethal force to prevent a crime of this type...My main
> concern is that all the yankees, criminals, and foreigners will get our laws
> changed.
>
> RB
twaldron
Joe wrote:
> "shooting a man and your wife if you caught them in bed together was
> justifiable
> homicide"
> You see something wrond with this? Maybe 60% of women wouldn't cheat on
> their husbands if this was allowed.
--
Jeepers
twaldron <twal...@sbcOBVIOUSglobal.net> wrote:
A person is justified in using deadly force against another to protect
land or tangible, movable property:
(3) he reasonably believes that:
(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.
Read it again.
IOW He may use deadly force if he believes any other type of force would
put him at risk of death or serious bodily injury.
This is on the tests for CHL. I carry with a CHL.
twaldron
force is permitted in Texas. Also, if the crime occurs at night.
Someone had posted that there were states that allow the use of deadly
force WITHOUT risk of bodily injury. I asked which states that would be
and several people responded with Texas.
I still contend that if you shoot and kill someone that is stealing from
your property, in daylight, in Texas, WITHOUT risk of bodily injury, you
will be prosecuted.
Jeepers wrote:
--
Jeepers
twaldron <twal...@sbcOBVIOUSglobal.net> wrote:
> We are saying the same thing here. IF there is risk of harm, deadly
> force is permitted in Texas. Also, if the crime occurs at night.
>
> Someone had posted that there were states that allow the use of deadly
> force WITHOUT risk of bodily injury. I asked which states that would be
> and several people responded with Texas.
>
> I still contend that if you shoot and kill someone that is stealing from
> your property, in daylight, in Texas, WITHOUT risk of bodily injury, you
> will be prosecuted.
Perhaps. But even in daylight, if one tried to stop a theft, it would be
difficult to not incur the threat of bodily injury.
I'm at home, on my ranch, on a Saturday afternoon. I look out my window,
and two guys are stealing tools/cattle/tractor/truck/Jeep. I want to
keep this stuff. I am going to grab a gun and a cell phone (most likely
my short shotgun & my carry pistol) and I'm going outside to stop them.
I call the sheriff first on the cell and leave the line open.
I appear and ask them to cease and disist.
If they hit the deck and scream "don't shoot". Correct response.
If they run, empty handed. Correct response.
If they run, with goods, I persue, armed.
If they approach me. Wrong response.
If they continue loading cattle. Wrong response if they enter the
vehicle.
If they start the tractor's engine. Wrong response.
The very act of stopping them incurs the risk of bodily injury.
The nighttime scenario simply makes is harder to judge what they might
or might not be doing, enabling leeway in the response.
twaldron
> If they continue loading cattle. Wrong response if they enter the
vehicle.
> If they start the tractor's engine. Wrong response.
If you shoot and kill them in daylight in these scenarios, I believe you
will be prosecuted, even in Texas.
Jeepers wrote:
--
Jeepers
twaldron <twal...@sbcOBVIOUSglobal.net> wrote:
> I agree with you except the last two:
>
> > If they continue loading cattle. Wrong response if they enter the
> vehicle.
> > If they start the tractor's engine. Wrong response.
>
> If you shoot and kill them in daylight in these scenarios, I believe you
> will be prosecuted, even in Texas.
No. The vehicle is regarded as a deadly weapon in Texas.
A running tractor is especially bad, as a house can't protect you from
it.
twaldron
house, but if they were just fleeing, I just can't see it. I still
think you would have to convince a jury that you were being attacked
unless the evidence at the scene showed the cops that you were under attack.
Jeepers wrote:
--
John R
there with the Sig P220 and Mossberg...) It's too late. They got
what they wanted and probably won't be back. Remember- you should not
even bother locking a soft top Jeep and NEVER leave anything in it
that you care about.
kevin <ke...@el.net> wrote in message news:<JVp2b.254585$o%2.116759@sccrnsc02>...
Jeepers
twaldron <twal...@sbcOBVIOUSglobal.net> wrote:
> Well, yes, if they were attempting to run you over or crash into your
> house, but if they were just fleeing, I just can't see it. I still
> think you would have to convince a jury that you were being attacked
> unless the evidence at the scene showed the cops that you were under attack.
They can't flee if I'm standing in their escape path.
This kind of thing is reported on all the time. The last time I heard on
was in the San Antonio paper. No charges. Do a google.
Especially If the shooter was a CHL holder. Of course it's up to the LEO
onscene to determine what happened.
The scenarios are innumerable and never happen as expected.
The bottom line is telling the LEO "I was in fear of my life".
If the burgler is face down with holes in his back (and bigger ones in
front) and empty handed, you are up the creek.
The CHL instructor told us to keep pulling the trigger until the fear
has left our bodies.
Jeepers
john...@hotmail.com (John R) wrote:
> As much as I agree with your original reaction- (I would've been out
> there with the Sig P220 and Mossberg...) It's too late. They got
> what they wanted and probably won't be back. Remember- you should not
> even bother locking a soft top Jeep and NEVER leave anything in it
> that you care about.
EXACTLY. Been there, done that.
twaldron
with an example of a state that permits deadly force WITHOUT THREAT OF
BODILY HARM OR DEATH yet. That's what started this whole thing.
Jeepers wrote:
--
Wblane
>> I would think twice before shooting somebody for taking my radio out of my
>> Jeep.
>
>Legal in Texas.
-Bill (remove "botizer" to reply via email)
Jeepers
twaldron <twal...@sbcOBVIOUSglobal.net> wrote:
> Yes, fear of bodily harm is present there. Still, no one has come up
> with an example of a state that permits deadly force WITHOUT THREAT OF
> BODILY HARM OR DEATH yet. That's what started this whole thing.
>
That would be Texas, after dark.
Jeepers
wrote:
> never heard anyone complain about too many "boobies"
> Couldn't resist
I don't know what I'd do if She had three boobies. Call an ornitholigist?
Jeepers
wrote:
> DITTO!!!!!
Here's the law. Pay close attention to TxPC §9.42(2)(A) and (B)...
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.
§ 9.43. Protection of Third Person's Property
A person is justified in using force or deadly force against another to
protect land or tangible, movable property of a third person if, under
the circumstances as he reasonably believes them to be, the actor would
be justified under Section 9.41 or 9.42 in using force or deadly force to
protect his own land or property and:
(1) the actor reasonably believes the unlawful interference
constitutes attempted or consummated theft of or criminal mischief to
the tangible, movable property; or
(2) the actor reasonably believes that:
(A) the third person has requested his protection of the land or
property;
(B) he has a legal duty to protect the third person's land or
property;
or
(C) the third person whose land or property he uses force or deadly
force to protect is the actor's spouse, parent, or child, resides
with
the actor, or is under the actor's care.
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.
§ 9.44. Use of Device to Protect Property
The justification afforded by Sections 9.41 and 9.43 applies to the use
of
a device to protect land or tangible, movable property if:
(1) the device is not designed to cause, or known by the actor to
create a substantial risk of causing, death or serious bodily injury;
and
(2) use of the device is reasonable under all the circumstances as the
actor reasonably believes them to be when he installs the device.
Acts 1973, 63rd Leg., p. 883, ch. 399, § 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1974. Amended by
Acts 1975, 64th Leg., p. 913, ch. 342, § 6, eff. Sept. 1, 1975. Acts
1993,
73rd Leg., ch. 900, § 1.01, eff. Sept. 1, 1994.
twaldron
determine if the threat is there or not, so the victim gets the benefit
of the doubt there. You HAVE TO ASSUME there is the potential for bodily
harm at night. I'm not arguing that point. The cover of night
constitutes threat.
So:
No one has come up with an example of a state that permits deadly force
WITHOUT THREAT OF BODILY HARM OR DEATH yet. That's what started this
whole thing. The cover of night constitutes threat.
--
Jeepers
twaldron <twal...@sbcOBVIOUSglobal.net> wrote:
> Yes, but we've already established that night makes it impossible to
> determine if the threat is there or not, so the victim gets the benefit
> of the doubt there. You HAVE TO ASSUME there is the potential for bodily
> harm at night. I'm not arguing that point. The cover of night
> constitutes threat.
>
> So:
>
> No one has come up with an example of a state that permits deadly force
> WITHOUT THREAT OF BODILY HARM OR DEATH yet. That's what started this
> whole thing. The cover of night constitutes threat.
Take this over to tx.guns. You are not reading the law. It's clear.
Larry Hendrick
permit, shoot the bastard.
--
"twaldron" <twal...@sbcOBVIOUSglobal.net> wrote in message
news:8fM2b.121$1h2...@newssvr22.news.prodigy.com...
Gerald G. McGeorge
God love 'em!
"Larry Hendrick" <lhen...@rgv.rr.com> wrote in message
news:MvM2b.16148$f76.2...@twister.austin.rr.com...
Jeepers
John A. Stovall <johnas...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> This has been up held many time in court.
>
> Now you can't use a Booby trap as that's covered in 9:44 but you can
> shoot 'em.
>
> Last high profile case on this was back when the gold plated wheels
> were so popular. A Dallas apartment resident shot 4 people stealing
> his wheels in the parking lot from his balcony at night with an SKS.
> He killed 3 and wounded the 4th. The Grand Jury agreed with the law
> an no billed him.
Thank you. I thoght so, but I was not sure.
Joe
"Jeepers" <moo...@INVALIDfnbnet.net> wrote in message
news:moomesa-8BC815...@corp.newsfeeds.com...
Robert Bills
That's because there is no state that excuses the use of deadly force absent an
imminent threat of great bodily harm or death. Stopping a thief from stealing
livestock or jeeps is not enough, even in Texas.
>> The cover of night constitutes threat.
Not exactly. Darkness alone does not render a situation one where there is an
imminent threat of great bodily harm or death. Read the following, which is
consistent with the law in every other state:
California Jury Instructions--Criminal CALJIC 5.12. Justifiable Homicide in
Self-Defense
"The killing of another person in self-defense is justifiable and not unlawful
when the person who does the killing actually and reasonably believes:
"1. That there is imminent danger that the other person will either kill [him]
[her] or cause [him] [her] great bodily injury; and
"2. That it is necessary under the circumstances for [him] [her] to use in
self- defense force or means that might cause the death of the other person for
the purpose of avoiding death or great bodily injury to [himself] [herself].
"A bare fear of death or great bodily injury is not sufficient to justify a
homicide. To justify taking the life of another in self-defense, the
circumstances must be such as would excite the fears of a reasonable person
placed in a similar position, and the party killing must act under the
influence of those fears alone. The danger must be apparent, present, immediate
and instantly dealt with, or must so appear at the time to the slayer as a
reasonable person, and the killing must be done under a well-founded belief
that it is necessary to save one's self from death or great bodily harm."
"In order to justify a homicide under the plea of self-defense, it must appear
not only that the defendant actually believed himself in deadly peril, but that
as a reasonable man he had sufficient grounds for his belief." (People v.
Williams, 75 Cal.App.3d 731, 739, 142 Cal.Rptr. 704, 709 (1st Dist.1977).)
Go ahead, use your firearm against jeep thieves. State prisons are full of
guys who had a "good excuse" for what they did because they read once in a
newspaper that someone else avoided punishment for doing what appeared to them
to be the same thing, and because they thought they could understand the
nuances of the law without ever setting foot in a law school.
Robert Bills
KG6LMV
Orange County CA
http://www.outdoorwire.com/4x4/jeep/home/jeep-l/billsr.htm
http://www.RobertBills.com
Jeepers
rdbi...@aol.comxxxxxxxx (Robert Bills) wrote:
> Go ahead, use your firearm against jeep thieves. State prisons are full of
> guys who had a "good excuse" for what they did because they read once in a
> newspaper that someone else avoided punishment for doing what appeared to them
> to be the same thing, and because they thought they could understand the
> nuances of the law without ever setting foot in a law school.
>
Did you not read the post of Texas law? California is VASTLY different.
Jeepers
rdbi...@aol.comxxxxxxxx (Robert Bills) wrote:
> >No one has come up with an example of a state that permits deadly force
> >> WITHOUT THREAT OF BODILY HARM OR DEATH.
>
> That's because there is no state that excuses the use of deadly force absent
> an
> imminent threat of great bodily harm or death. Stopping a thief from
> stealing
> livestock or jeeps is not enough, even in Texas.
>
> >> The cover of night constitutes threat.
>
> Not exactly. Darkness alone does not render a situation one where there is
> an
> imminent threat of great bodily harm or death. Read the following, which is
> consistent with the law in every other state:
What? Did you not read the entire thread or did you just ignore the
Texas penal code posting?
You are wrong:
Texas Penal code section 9
Especially pay attention to § 9.42. Deadly Force to Protect Property
What's good for California is NOT good for Texas.
Damn, people, GET OVER IT!
Take this shit over to tx.guns if you disagree, it's OFF TOPIC.
Robert Bills
I read the all of the relavant statutes in the Texas Penal Code, which is NOT
significantly different from California law as to what is required to justify
the use of force/deadly force for protection of property:
"งง 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 (non-deadly) force against the other
under Section 9.41 (defense against trespass); 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."
"งง 9.44. Use of Device to Protect Property
The justification afforded by Sections 9.41 and 9.43 applies to the use of a
device to protect land or tangible, movable property if:
(1) the device is NOT designed to cause, or known by the actor to create a
substantial risk of causing, death or serious bodily injury; AND
(2) use of the device is reasonable under all the circumstances as the actor
reasonably believes them to be when he installs the device."
You should read section 9.42 again, very carefully this time. You cannot use
deadly force, even at night, unless "the land or property cannot be protected
or recovered by any other means" or "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."
I rest my case.
L.W. Hughes III
inside our homes.
God Bless America, ßill O|||||||O
mailto:LWHug...@aol.com http://www.billhughes.com/
Robert Bills wrote:
>
> I read the all of the relavant statutes in the Texas Penal Code, which is NOT
> significantly different from California law as to what is required to justify
> the use of force/deadly force for protection of property:
>
> "§§ 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 (non-deadly) force against the other
> under Section 9.41 (defense against trespass); 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."
>
> "§§ 9.44. Use of Device to Protect Property
Jim Horne
"Jeepers" <moo...@INVALIDfnbnet.net> wrote in message
: In article <JVp2b.254585$o%2.116759@sccrnsc02>, kevin <ke...@el.net>
: wrote:
:
: > 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.
actually this is a great idea. one of my co-workers installed a camcorder
in his SUV that pointed to his back door because his house was getting
broken in to often. caught his neighbor breaking into is back door, the guy
even looked right at the camera as he went inside. called the cops had them
view the video and while the cop was watching the tape the neighbor came out
to check his mailbox (even though the mail doesn't come till three hours
later) said to the cop 'that's him right there' the cop after watching the
video agreed it was the same guy and arrested him on the spot...just so
happens he had priors and VOP...
Jeepers
rdbi...@aol.comxxxxxxxx (Robert Bills) wrote:
> You should read section 9.42 again, very carefully this time.
> You cannot use deadly force, even at night, unless "the land or property cannot be
> protected or recovered by any other means"
Exactly what other way is there to protect or recover property? Shout at
them? Wave your hands furiously? Shine a flashlight at them? WTF?
> or "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."
>
> I rest my case.
As a CHL holder in Texas I can assure you, you are mistaken.
TAKE IT TO TX.GUNS
(I crossposted anyway.)
If you don't, it shows you don't really know and are afraid to debate it
with folks who know.
Here's the law. Pay close attention to TxPC §9.42(2)(A) and (B)...
SUBCHAPTER D. PROTECTION OF PROPERTY
§ 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:
[BEGIN PART YOU ARE NOT GETTING]
(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
[END PART YOU ARE NOT GETTING]
(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.
L.W. Hughes III
Jeepers wrote:
><Snip>
Jeepers
L.W.(ßill) Hughes III <billh...@cox.net> wrote:
> Please don't crosspost, as only inconsiderate assholes do.
You are correct. My bad. What's your solution?
L.W. Hughes III
group and add to the off topic, but don't crosspost as it is a violation
of our charter:
ftp://ftp.uu.net/usenet/news.announce.newgroups/rec/rec.autos.makers.jeep+willys
Jeepers
L.W.(ßill) Hughes III <billh...@cox.net> wrote:
> Write separate posts, and maybe invite them to subscribe to this
> group and add to the off topic, but don't crosspost as it is a violation
> of our charter:
Done. Thanks.
Bob Casanova
rec.autos.makers.jeep+willys, posted by twaldron
<twal...@sbcOBVIOUSglobal.net>:
>Which state allows using deadly force when life isn't endangered???
I assume you mean by civilians. I can't provide a list, but
Texas for sure, and I know I've seen others mentioned. Tried
Google?
>
>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.
--
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
rec.autos.makers.jeep+willys, posted by twaldron
<twal...@sbcOBVIOUSglobal.net>:
I may be missing something, but if you'll check below you'll
notice that "night" is only mentioned for 2 specific crimes;
arson, burglary, robbery and aggravated robbery don't seem
to carry that restriction.
>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.
>
>Jeepers wrote:
>
>> 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.
>>
>>
>> -----= 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! =-----
--