Some scumbag vandal tried screwing up my sisters motor, pried the gas tank and put water in it , luckily we caught it drained the tank and the 2.4 toyota scion motor was saved. Second time this week first time they deflated tires. So i will be sleeping in it tonight to see if the vandal returns, i will detain the vandal unti police arrives.
Some scumbag vandal tried screwing up my sisters motor, pried the gas tank and put water in it , luckily we caught it drained the tank and the 2.4 toyota scion motor was saved. Second time this week first time they deflated tires. So i will be sleeping in it tonight to see if the vandal returns, i will detain the vandal unti police arrives.
What town / city does your sister park her car? Is it like in Opa Locka or Liberty City or something?
Actually she still lives with my parents she's only 19 and goes to college so they live in a suburb in South Broward nice decent neighborhood I suspect it's her ex-boyfriend it almost sounds like she knows who it is when I asked her who was messing with her car cuz she said confidently that she didn't think it anything's going to happen again
Had to post this in two different messages my cell phone HTML is all jacked up, I'm only scared if I do catch them what happens between the time I detain him or even her so when the police get there I don't want the rage take over what is occurring, if it's a female messing with her my sister herself can take care of it she's a tall blonde Amazon pretty and can whoop ass so in that department she can handle herself her ex-boyfriend is a six foot three stick figure I'll mop the concrete with him
I highly advise against touching or confronting anyone. No car is worth your freedom. In California, they could charge your with false imprisonment or if you move the person to the curb, away from the car they can get you with kidnapping. I don't know what your laws are like, but a cheap Harbor Freight motion sensing technology camera should work. I would advise you to just make a lot of noise and have a VERY bright flashlight to scare the person away,.......IF you just can't resist taking action.
Florida has the castle doctrine and im gonna get the neighbors camera footage to prove they vandalized it before , but either way they will run so I'll restrain myself , that scare will be enough , you talked sense into me
Florida has the castle doctrine and im gonna get the neighbors camera footage to prove they vandalized it before , but either way they will run so I'll restrain myself , that scare will be enough , you talked sense into me
Depends whether Fla Castle Doctrine extends to a motor vehicle. It does in Texas.
Sec. 9.31. SELF-DEFENSE. (a) Except as provided in Subsection (b), a person is justified in using force against another when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to protect the actor against the other's use or attempted use of unlawful force. The actor's belief that the force was immediately necessary as described by this subsection is presumed to be reasonable if the actor: (1) knew or had reason to believe that the person against whom the force was used: (A) unlawfully and with force entered, or was attempting to enter unlawfully and with force, the actor's occupied habitation, vehicle, or place of business or employment; (B) unlawfully and with force removed, or was attempting to remove unlawfully and with force, the actor from the actor's habitation, vehicle, or place of business or employment; or (C) was committing or attempting to commit aggravated kidnapping, murder, sexual assault, aggravated sexual assault, robbery, or aggravated robbery; (2) did not provoke the person against whom the force was used; and (3) was not otherwise engaged in criminal activity, other than a Class C misdemeanor that is a violation of a law or ordinance regulating traffic at the time the force was used. (b) The use of force against another is not justified: (1) in response to verbal provocation alone; (2) to resist an arrest or search that the actor knows is being made by a peace officer, or by a person acting in a peace officer's presence and at his direction, even though the arrest or search is unlawful, unless the resistance is justified under Subsection (c); (3) if the actor consented to the exact force used or attempted by the other; (4) if the actor provoked the other's use or attempted use of unlawful force, unless: (A) the actor abandons the encounter, or clearly communicates to the other his intent to do so reasonably believing he cannot safely abandon the encounter; and (B) the other nevertheless continues or attempts to use unlawful force against the actor; or (5) if the actor sought an explanation from or discussion with the other person concerning the actor's differences with the other person while the actor was: (A) carrying a weapon in violation of Section 46.02; or (B) possessing or transporting a weapon in violation of Section 46.05. (c) The use of force to resist an arrest or search is justified: (1) if, before the actor offers any resistance, the peace officer (or person acting at his direction) uses or attempts to use greater force than necessary to make the arrest or search; and (2) when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to protect himself against the peace officer's (or other person's) use or attempted use of greater force than necessary. (d) The use of deadly force is not justified under this subchapter except as provided in Sections 9.32, 9.33, and 9.34. (e) A person who has a right to be present at the location where the force is used, who has not provoked the person against whom the force is used, and who is not engaged in criminal activity at the time the force is used is not required to retreat before using force as described by this section. (f) For purposes of Subsection (a), in determining whether an actor described by Subsection (e) reasonably believed that the use of force was necessary, a finder of fact may not consider whether the actor failed to retreat.
[This message has been edited by maryjane (edited 01-08-2018).]
Looks like the California people are really worried about doing anything. Kind of sad. Do that kind of sh!t around here and you will get met with a gun in your face.
Looks like the California people are really worried about doing anything. Kind of sad. Do that kind of sh!t around here and you will get met with a gun in your face.
Yes we are. That is one of the reasons why I want to move. The liberal mentality is not going to change.....not any time soon.
Originally posted by maryjane: Not really. Intent is interpretive. Doesn't matter what the real or actual intent was. Remember the 5 magic words Dan: "Ah feared fer mah life"
quote
You have to say it Uncle Don. It works for us and it'll work for you.
It's best not to challenge this theory against a person armed with a can of shaving cream, a roll of toilet papper or a cup of sugar. Lots of people try to harm police with a wide spectrum of weapons, but a history of vandalism on a car is TOTALLY different. Any force used will be investigated and in worse case scenarios a jury decides the outcome. They can't read minds, so the real intent of force used is unknown to them and the courtroom circus of Justice between lawyer ringleaders will commence. Yes intent is interpretive, but just think about how interpretive the second amendment is?
[This message has been edited by Rickady88GT (edited 01-09-2018).]
Evidently, no history at all is also 'totally different' to some people. It was dark, I thought he had reached for a weapon. Didn't know it was a can of shaving cream in his pocket..
Slippery slope indeed...
[This message has been edited by maryjane (edited 01-09-2018).]
So.....this thread is about his concerns over a car being vandalized, a valid concern given that there is a history of it.....no harm or threats to people. So I am wondering about your recommend course of action? Are you advocating an Alamo Last Stand strategy? Or complaining about Police........again?
I'm suggesting he has a right to defend himself against any perceived threat, in accordance with the laws of that state. That IS, the purpose of castle doctrine and other statutes, as well as the 2nd amendment--isn't it?
It's the vandal that is testing the will of law abiding society and the legislated statues.
[This message has been edited by maryjane (edited 01-09-2018).]
I'm suggesting he has a right to defend himself against any perceived threat, in accordance with the laws of that state. That IS, the purpose of castle doctrine and other statutes, as well as the 2nd amendment--isn't it?
It's the vandal that is testing the will of law abiding society and the legislated statues.
Show me where ANY castle law allows the use of force to stop a vandal. Remember Zimmerman? He was well within the law to shoot Martin, and look how it ruined his life. Are you suggesting a similar fate to a person who is asking for advice? IF a person chooses to claim "a reasonable belief of imminent great bodily harm or death" to defend their actions then that is a gamble that could cost a prison term. Over a car that he does not even own?
[This message has been edited by Rickady88GT (edited 01-09-2018).]
There is no such thing as a safe neighborhood. Smart thieves go to the better neighborhoods. No resale value for a 13" b&w tv from a ghetto.
One of my wealthier friends always joked about me being paranoid where I lived. He lives in a mansion in a gated neighborhood within a high end country club. One night last fall, someone broke into 4 of his vehicles while he was home.
I dont care about rules for thieves. Ive pointed guns and shot at people attempting to break into vehicles at my house. Never spent a minute in jail. Worse thing that happened is they confiscated one handgun I used to shoot at someone. My lawyer had to jump in to get it returned. They didnt even ask about another handgun holstered on my hip. Local cops know Im usually armed and have a CCP.
Show me where ANY castle law allows the use of force to stop a vandal.
Happens every day. The precedent was set long ago. Not only can I use force here, to protect property, I can use deadly force. In Texas, the charge usually is not vandalism but 'criminal mischief' which results in a charge of misdemeanor: class A, B, or C. A Class C misdemeanor (in Texas) is anything where the damage is less $50 or less. How much damage has to be done to a car to exceed the $50 threshold? Answer: Not much. Anything above a Class C misdemeanor in Texas falls under Caste Doctrine both in Statute and Case law.
quote
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.
Well, that was last night and we haven't heard from DanD since. Do you suppose he was offered somewhat warmer, less private accommodations for the near future?
Thank you for posting this. I also did a quick Google search and came up with the same thing. I wish California had the Texas version of Castle Law.
I still hold firm to, it's best not to test this law. Avoid the expense of court, lawyers and possibly loosing your freedom. In self defense cases though, I am big on protecting family and self, even if that means deadly force to counter deadly force.
In Texas, I can even legally shoot a dog that is chasing someone else's livestock--or has been..so can anyone else. Don't matter who the dog belongs to as long as it isn't the livestock owner's cow dog in the course of working cattle or other livestock.
822.013. Dogs or Coyotes That Attack Animals
(a) A dog or coyote that is attacking, is about to attack, or has recently attacked livestock, domestic animals, or fowls may be killed by:
(1) any person witnessing the attack; or
(2) the attacked animal's owner or a person acting on behalf of the owner if the owner or person has knowledge of the attack.
(b) A person who kills a dog or coyote as provided by this section is not liable for damages to the owner, keeper, or person in control of the dog or coyote.
(c) A person who discovers on the person's property a dog or coyote known or suspected of having killed livestock, domestic animals, or fowls may detain or impound the dog or coyote and return it to its owner or deliver the dog or coyote to the local animal control authority. The owner of the dog or coyote is liable for all costs incurred in the capture and care of the dog or coyote and all damage done by the dog or coyote.
(d) The owner, keeper, or person in control of a dog or coyote that is known to have attacked livestock, domestic animals, or fowls shall control the dog or coyote in a manner approved by the local animal control authority.
(e) A person is not required to acquire a hunting license under Section 42.002, Parks and Wildlife Code, to kill a dog or coyote under this section.
Property is pretty important here. We value it as much as our lives. So does our legislature and governor's office.[/i]
[This message has been edited by maryjane (edited 01-09-2018).]
In Texas, I can even legally shoot a dog that is chasing someone else's livestock--or has been..so can anyone else. Don't matter who the dog belongs to as long as it isn't the livestock owner's cow dog in the course of working cattle or other livestock.
822.013. Dogs or Coyotes That Attack Animals
(a) A dog or coyote that is attacking, is about to attack, or has recently attacked livestock, domestic animals, or fowls may be killed by:
(1) any person witnessing the attack; or
(2) the attacked animal's owner or a person acting on behalf of the owner if the owner or person has knowledge of the attack.
(b) A person who kills a dog or coyote as provided by this section is not liable for damages to the owner, keeper, or person in control of the dog or coyote.
(c) A person who discovers on the person's property a dog or coyote known or suspected of having killed livestock, domestic animals, or fowls may detain or impound the dog or coyote and return it to its owner or deliver the dog or coyote to the local animal control authority. The owner of the dog or coyote is liable for all costs incurred in the capture and care of the dog or coyote and all damage done by the dog or coyote.
(d) The owner, keeper, or person in control of a dog or coyote that is known to have attacked livestock, domestic animals, or fowls shall control the dog or coyote in a manner approved by the local animal control authority.
(e) A person is not required to acquire a hunting license under Section 42.002, Parks and Wildlife Code, to kill a dog or coyote under this section.
Property is pretty important here. We value it as much as our lives. So does our legislature and governor's office.[/i]
This gives me hope, maybe more than you realize. Thanks for this bit of helpful knowledge. Not to long ago, you said that trust in our Government officials is in question, from my standpoint, you have just proven otherwise.
[This message has been edited by Rickady88GT (edited 01-09-2018).]
In Texas, I can even legally shoot a dog that is chasing someone else's livestock--or has been..so can anyone else. Don't matter who the dog belongs to as long as it isn't the livestock owner's cow dog in the course of working cattle or other livestock.
Lost a really hot girlfriend this way. Her dog (an expensive retriever of some kind) (and, I knew who owned it) was out chasing our cattle in our pasture. I got out the shotgun and shot it in the ass as it was running for the fence. Wish I had killed it but, didn't have a good angle to nail it. Regardless, the dog made it home and that was the last time I got to see or nail the girlfriend.
Some things you just don't put up with........ Some or those calves were mine.........
This gives me hope, maybe more than you realize. Thanks for this bit of helpful knowledge. Not to long ago, you said that trust in our Government officials is in question, from my standpoint, you have just proven otherwise.
I was referring I believe, to un-elected federal officials, specifically agency heads like James Clapper, and IIRC, what I said was I didn't take them at their word, nor should any of us......ever. Eternal vigilance is the price of democracy.
I was referring I believe, to un-elected federal officials, specifically agency heads like James Clapper, and IIRC, what I said was I didn't take them at their word, nor should any of us......ever. Eternal vigilance is the price of democracy.
quote
Originally posted by maryjane:
The days of trusting our government officials at their word is (sadly) long gone.
I won't split hairs with you. I still think America is a great Nation and we can make it better.
Originally posted by Lambo nut:Looks like the California people are really worried about doing anything. Kind of sad. Do that kind of sh!t around here and you will get met with a gun in your face.
Eh, if the cops do not show up in 10 minutes, I have bury them myself. "I was in fear for my life." is not just for cops. Why did you not call the police? I was in shock. I am a complete snowflake after all.
I wouldn't be surprised if we never hear another word about this as usual with him. Dumb idea regardless. Put a cheap cam up for the time being and be done with it. While I hate vandals if the sister knows who is doing it, let her deal with the problem she's created.
This is par for the course for him. Very flaky. Hopefully he didn't sleep in the car and so something stupid. His post usually strike me as all talk and just venting. Vandals hack me off.
