PETA Types, Defending Your Farm?

BigDaddy40 · #61 02/07/07, 01:45 PM

didya miss this part?

Quote:

they were a group, took all of her rabbits and gave the impression that she would be hurt if she resisted.

drawing a weapon on a threatening group is usually enough to make them back up and leave. (note i said draw....the choice to fire is now on them)

she had every right to feel her life was endangered. they were on her property, taking her possessions and implied she'd get hurt if she resisted.

where i come from that's a real threat and should be dealt with accordingly

upon the threat, draw weapon, call 9.11 with the other hand.

if they escalate things, i'd fire. you do what you choose

i have no idea where this backwards thinking came from that you have to tolerate threats and squeek to the goobermint for help. try this scenario 100 years ago on grampa's farm and see what would have happened

turkeys are those that get eaten and chased off their food plot

something else. i've been in a couple of life or death situations. one i walked into a convenience store and 4 15 yr olds happened to be raping the clerk in the back. she was pretty glad i was armed and not some 9.11 caller screaming for help. probably saved her life.

i got shot in the back for my trouble on that one.

i've also taught the ccw course for years here and am nra approved. i've been through the fbi weapons training at quantico. i'm competent enough to judge when to fire and when not to

you have no need to be accepting of a threat to your life unless you choose to be a victim

i don't. i also don't ever want to have to shoot someone but i will if necessary and in my judgement the op scenario is very close to being necessary. after one warning, the decision to actually have to shoot to protect myself would totally depend on them

9.11 will never save your life. the cops are there to clean up the aftermath. whether they're squeeging up what's left of you or not is up to you. they can't protect you. that part of life is on everyone one of us.

i made my choice years ago

hisenthlay · #62 02/07/07, 01:52 PM

What Trixiwick said.

If I honestly and truly feared for the life or physical safety of me or my loved ones, yes, I'd do whatever I could, and whatever was necessary to prevent harm to us. If I have to choose between dying there in my yard, or a legal battle, I'll pick legal battle any day. If I have to choose between losing a few animals I was planning to kill and eat (or my car, or my wallet, or whatever), or a legal battle, I pick losing the item. Count me in the pragmatist camp, or what I was calling "more sense than guts".

Yes, there are surely a small number of "true believer" animal activists who will stop at nothing to prove their point. Yes, they have made the news in the past. I believe that those people probably have diagnosable mental illnesses. I do NOT think they represent anything near the majority of PETA followers. People carrying PETA literature and attempting to free some bunnies, unarmed, after responding to a classified posting, are most likely half-cocked kids pretending like they're tough. Believe me, I know many people (from high school and college) who might have tried such a silly stunt. I actually have one friend who was arrested at a School of the Americas protest when they got lost and drove their bus onto military property. Dopes. Yes, they were there to protest, yes, their bus was filled with anti-government signs and smelly hippy wannabes, but they wouldn't have dreamed of doing something that likely to bring retribution on purpose. Thank goodness this happened before 9/11, or they'd probably all be rotting in Guantanamo right now. Instead, they're off getting their doctorates, or being social workers, or consultants, or whatever.

BigDaddy40 · #63 02/07/07, 02:00 PM

why not explain your postition without the insults like "more sense than guts" ?

to me it's pretty gutless to let others run amok all over your property, steal your stuff and threaten you

but that's my opinion. live your life how ya choose and hope you have someone armed close by when ya need it lol (or of course....a deputy within a minute of your location and a quick 9.11 operator!)

oh ya....and hope said person isn't one of the gutless types

trixiwick · #64 02/07/07, 02:00 PM

Quote:

upon the threat, draw weapon, call 9.11 with the other hand.

On this, we can agree. I just think a bunch of dumb college kids are quite unlikely to actually carry out any physical harm to a person, and therefore a very real physical threat would have to be clear before I'd fire.

Quote:

i have no idea where this backwards thinking came from that you have to tolerate threats and squeek to the goobermint for help. try this scenario 100 years ago on grampa's farm and see what would have happened

It's called law and order, and it's isn't exactly a new lib'rl concept. If you aren't a believer in it, why are you calling 911?

BigDaddy40 · #65 02/07/07, 02:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by trixiwick

On this, we can agree. I just think a bunch of dumb college kids are quite unlikely to actually carry out any physical harm to a person, and therefore a very real physical threat would have to be clear before I'd fire.

It's called law and order, and it's isn't exactly a new lib'rl concept. If you aren't a believer in it, why are you calling 911?

we agree on the first point.

on the second i believe it's more of a liberal mindset of the last 50 years that has brought us to the point of allowing this kind of thing to happen.

i'm calling 9.11 for two reasons. to alert them of the situation and the fact i feel threatened and am armed.

the second so they know where i'm at and where the trouble is

i'm a firm believer in law and order. i'm not a believer in being a victim.

just so we're clear, there were laws 100 years ago too and the ficticious scenario i mentioned with gramps farm would've been handled and the cops would have respected his right to defend himself and his property. you wouldn't have had a bunch of half wit lawyers running around trying to sue him afterwards either.

do you think he would have been arrested and sued 100 years ago??

hisenthlay · #66 02/07/07, 02:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BigDaddy40

didya miss this part?

I didn't miss that part. Hm. "Gave the impression"... "IF she resisted".... Still not enough for me to want to get in trouble with the law over. Like I said--if someone showed me a credible threat to my person, I would react with as much force as I could muster. This does not strike me as a credible threat. I wasn't there, so there's no way for me to know for sure, but that's my best guess. I agree that 911 is mostly there to clean up the mess--if the "mess" is going to be some missing rabbits, I'll let 911 handle it. If the "mess" is going to be me, I'll do whatever I can to stop it myself. Clear enough?

If you have all that nra, etc., background, I'm sure you're pretty well educated in the relevant laws in your area. Your education may have come with a political slant that didn't give you all the possible negative outcomes, or not--I don't know. Maybe you know the whole truth and nothing but the truth. In any event, I don't think it's a good idea to come on here and give people the impression that they can shoot (or even point a loaded weapon at) whoever comes on their property with an intent to steal and makes vague and probably hollow threats at them--that may be the law where you are, but it could land someone else in a heap of trouble. That's what I'm saying.

The laws 100 years ago were quite different. I'm not about to delve into a historical analysis of the law in wherever "grandpa's farm" happened to be. I'm talking about here and now.

I'm glad you did have a weapon and the courage to walk in and save that woman. That's a very different situation than this, as I see it. I understand situations like that. My fiance was in a similar one years ago, and ended up beating the attacker almost to death with the butt end of the attacker's own knife, after yanking it out of the attacker's hand by the blade. By the time the cops arrived, they found my fiance kneeling on the guy's unconscious body, blood everywhere. That guy is still in jail. My fiance didn't have any legal trouble, because there was good proof (both witnesses and circumstantial) that it was in self defense. In a situation of life and death, you do what you have to do, and deal with the consequences later. In a situation of somebody trying to take your meat rabbits, the consequences play a bigger factor in your decision making. Or mine, anyway.

hisenthlay · #67 02/07/07, 02:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BigDaddy40

why not explain your postition without the insults like "more sense than guts" ?

Well, I do apologize for that. I had originally aimed it at the PETA people, not at you, and although it is a blunt shorthand for what I'm getting at, I think "let cooler heads prevail" would've worked just as well. I get so tired of all the people on this board (in various threads over the years--not you personally) who suggest drawing a gun every time someone or something looks at them crosswise, I may have overstated my case here.

BigDaddy40 · #68 02/07/07, 02:37 PM

Quote:

I didn't miss that part. Hm. "Gave the impression"... "IF she resisted".... Still not enough for me to want to get in trouble with the law over. Like I said--if someone showed me a credible threat to my person, I would react with as much force as I could muster. This does not strike me as a credible threat. I wasn't there, so there's no way for me to know for sure, but that's my best guess. I agree that 911 is mostly there to clean up the mess--if the "mess" is going to be some missing rabbits, I'll let 911 handle it. If the "mess" is going to be me, I'll do whatever I can to stop it myself. Clear enough?

not only didya miss it, you're still missing it. i clearly said i would make them very aware of the consequences of escalating the situation. no one would come on my property and take so much as a nail unless i gave it to em.

clear enough?

Quote:

If you have all that nra, etc., background, I'm sure you're pretty well educated in the relevant laws in your area. Your education may have come with a political slant that didn't give you all the possible negative outcomes, or not--I don't know. Maybe you know the whole truth and nothing but the truth. In any event, I don't think it's a good idea to come on here and give people the impression that they can shoot (or even point a loaded weapon at) whoever comes on their property with an intent to steal and makes vague and probably hollow threats at them--that may be the law where you are, but it could land someone else in a heap of trouble. That's what I'm saying.

the first clue of a losing argument is misconstuing someone's words. i asked you if you ever heard of the castle doctrine and you clearly haven't. i never said i would point a weapon at anyone either. i said i would draw my weapon at the first threat of harm. what happens next is up to the one making the threat. they can either back off or deal with what comes if they want to further the confrontation. my weapon would be in my hand, next to my leg in this situation

Quote:

The laws 100 years ago were quite different. I'm not about to delve into a historical analysis of the law in wherever "grandpa's farm" happened to be. I'm talking about here and now.

delving into it isn't necessary. i mentioned that as an example of where we are today vs the past and it's clearly the result of years of people like you wanting things "kinder and gentler" so you can cope with everyday life.

Quote:

My fiance didn't have any legal trouble, because there was good proof (both witnesses and circumstantial) that it was in self defense. In a situation of life and death,

now we're getting somewhere lol. same situation as the op. if they make a threat against a lone woman, it's clearly self defense. or do you really think there is a jury anywhere who would say a group of nitwits threatening harm to a woman alone on her property, after stealing her stuff, would convict her if she used force to end the threat??

if so, please post your state so i'll know never to visit that area.

BigDaddy40 · #69 02/07/07, 02:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by hisenthlay

Well, I do apologize for that. I had originally aimed it at the PETA people, not at you, and although it is a blunt shorthand for what I'm getting at, I think "let cooler heads prevail" would've worked just as well. I get so tired of all the people on this board (in various threads over the years--not you personally) who suggest drawing a gun every time someone or something looks at them crosswise, I may have overstated my case here.

you're still misconstruing. where did i or anyone else say that we'd point a weapon at anyone who looked crosseyed at us??

coming onto private property, stealing possessions and then threatening the homeowner is way past the looking crosseyed stage.

i get so tired of people too scared to protect what's theirs and then trying to make those that will protect themselves look like nuts.

it's a weak argument that's never held up either in society nor in common sense

hisenthlay · #70 02/07/07, 03:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BigDaddy40

not only didya miss it, you're still missing it. i clearly said i would make them very aware of the consequences of escalating the situation. no one would come on my property and take so much as a nail unless i gave it to em.

clear enough?

Well, I think you're still missing my point, but whatever.

Quote:

the first clue of a losing argument is misconstuing someone's words. i asked you if you ever heard of the castle doctrine and you clearly haven't.

Yes. I've heard of the castle doctrine. In my state (Pennsylvania, as posted in my profile), the so-called "castle doctrine", a holdover from old English law, means that there is no duty to retreat from threats within your home, but you must not meet them with excessive force. Additionally:

Quote:

A property owner may lawfully use reasonable force to protect his or her property but may not kill solely to prevent damage to property.5

1 P.L.E. CRIMINAL LAW § 1374

That treatise cites, for example, to the case of Commonwealth v. Wilkes, 414 Pa. 246 (Pa. 1964). In that case, the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania affirmed defendant's conviction and sentence for murder in the second degree after he killed an intruder in his home.

Some highlights from the case include the following:

Quote:

While an owner may lawfully use reasonable force to protect his property, if he kills in order to protect it, he is guilty of felonious homicide.

Quote:

Where a man is dangerously assaulted or feloniously attacked in his own dwelling house by one not a member of the household, he need not retreat, but may stand his ground and meet deadly force with deadly force to save his own life, or to protect himself from great bodily harm.

Quote:

The intentional taking of human life is presumed unlawful, and the burden of proving otherwise is upon the person setting up an excuse for so doing.

Quote:

Self-defense is an affirmative defense, and the burden of proving it is upon him who asserts it by the preponderance of the evidence. This burden never shifts. The Commonwealth of Pennsylvania is under no obligation to prove that a defendant did not kill in self-defense.

Ok. I'm not doing any more legal research for you. Your state's law may differ--I wouldn't know--it's not posted in the heading by your name, and in any event, I don't have all the time in the world to go around looking these things up.

Quote:

i never said i would point a weapon at anyone either. i said i would draw my weapon at the first threat of harm. what happens next is up to the one making the threat. they can either back off or deal with what comes if they want to further the confrontation. my weapon would be in my hand, next to my leg in this situation

I did not intentionally miscontrue your words--when I read things like "draw a weapon" in conjunction with statements like

Quote:

threaten me? just once then the threat will be removed.

, I did assume you meant you would aim the weapon at them, and potentially shoot, even if they were only taking "so much as a nail". I did not distinguish between "draw" and "aim". My mistake.

Quote:

delving into it isn't necessary. i mentioned that as an example of where we are today vs the past and it's clearly the result of years of people like you wanting things "kinder and gentler" so you can cope with everyday life.

Ok, now this is heading towards the snarky end of the spectrum. "Cope with everyday life"? I do just fine, thanks. Some people hold life in high regard, even if it is the lives of some nitwits making hollow threats on her property, and would rather the law not support some hair-triggered Dirty Harry wannabe making his own justice at every opportunity.

Quote:

now we're getting somewhere lol. same situation as the op. if they make a threat against a lone woman, it's clearly self defense. or do you really think there is a jury anywhere who would say a group of nitwits threatening harm to a woman alone on her property, after stealing her stuff, would convict her if she used force to end the threat??
if so, please post your state so i'll know never to visit that area.

Well, in my state (Pennsylvania), it would depend on how credible the threat was, whether the jury even believed her claim that the nitwits threatened her safety, and how much force she used. Feel free to visit or not.

BigDaddy40 · #71 02/07/07, 03:37 PM

snarky started with your "more guts than sense" comment hon.

meanwhile, back in realityville, the homeowner wouldn't be protecting her PROPERTY she'd be PROTECTING HER LIFE. i'd advise getting the correct parameters of the scenario correct before you spout off legalese that don't apply to the situation.

i clearly said that it's the threat to her person that would have caused me to draw the weapon. assuming that meant point it at someone just shows how much you really don't know about weapons and the law.

which life do you value more....yours or theirs? awhile back someone suggested in the media that all rape victims should just lay back and enjoy it. apparently this school of thought is still alive and well even today. i find that sorta sad

your dirty harry comments (snarky?) are just more of the same rationale for doing nothing. they hold no more water than the titanic did. it's just another weak misconstruing of what i posted. if that's what you require to think you've justified your position, so be it.

if you really feel that your life isn't worth protecting..... fine by me.

Micahn · #72 02/07/07, 03:54 PM

[QUOTE=hisenthlay] I don't think it's a good idea to come on here and give people the impression that they can shoot (or even point a loaded weapon at) whoever comes on their property with an intent to steal and makes vague and probably hollow threats at them--that may be the law where you are, but it could land someone else in a heap of trouble. That's what I'm saying.

QUOTE]

As far as I know here in the USA no one will get in trouble for defending themselves on their own land. A threat of any kind to harm someone should be taken very serious no matter who makes it for what ever reason. If someone comes unto your land and makes a threat against you and you do nothing but call 911, Chances are nothing at all will happen to them and they will just do it again to someone else. The next time they may take it a step more and really hurt or kill someone.
Way to many times people do this sort of thing and get away with it. The laws are so messed up now days that people can run all over others and not have to worry about a thing. But the day they make it illagle to defend yourself on your own land here in the USA is the day I go looking for some place else to live.

BigDaddy40 · #73 02/07/07, 04:01 PM

sorry, one more thought lol

Quote:

Some people hold life in high regard, even if it is the lives of some nitwits making hollow threats on her property,

it's that kind of thinking that's allowed the criminal gene pool to thrive. they know it and will for sure exploit those that adhere to it.

i seriously question your ability to realize real threats from hollow ones, especially after all the assuming and misconstruing you've done here. if i were you in this situation, i'd just stay in the house and let them take whatever they want. you'll be much safer then lol

reminds me of one wolf terrorizing 400 sheep. it never dawns on the sheep not to run when they so outnumber the wolf

hisenthlay · #74 02/07/07, 04:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BigDaddy40

snarky started with your "more guts than sense" comment hon. (snarky?)

Maybe, but I nicely apologized for it and resumed a civil tone as much as possible in response to your increasingly nasty tone. Hon.

Quote:

meanwhile, back in realityville, (snarky?) the homeowner wouldn't be protecting her PROPERTY she'd be PROTECTING HER LIFE. i'd advise getting the correct parameters of the scenario correct before you spout off legalese (snarky?) that don't apply to the situation.

Well, you and I see that differently. I never said she shouldn't protect her life--I just said she shouldn't resort to deadly force or anything like it in response to hollow threats. I think they're hollow. You think they're not. I think we basically agree on what to do in the case of serious threats to personal safety. We apparently don't agree on what's serious. If the jury agreed with me, you'd be doing prison time. The "legalese" quoted above is the law, like it or not. What those last couple quotes mean is that the law presumes you did NOT have valid justification for killing a person unless you prove that you did. You can think of it as, once they prove you actually killed the person, you are guilty of murder until proven otherwise. This lady at home on her farm who pulls a gun and kills the threatening intruders, better hope she has a trustworthy face and a good lawyer, and that the intruders do not. She's home alone, with no witnesses except the group of dopey kids she shot at. I'm sure she won't have any trouble getting off.

Quote:

i clearly said that it's the threat to her person that would have caused me to draw the weapon. assuming that meant point it at someone just shows how much you really don't know about weapons and the law. (snarky?)

Well, I haven't yet heard anything that I consider a serious threat to her person, so what I hear is you talking about drawing a weapon (and "stopping threats", whatever that means) in response to theft of property by unarmed people who were at least initially invited onto the property. I'm no weapons expert, but I know plenty about the law.

Quote:

which life do you value more....yours or theirs? awhile back someone suggested in the media that all rape victims should just lay back and enjoy it. apparently this school of thought is still alive and well even today. i find that sorta sad

Now you're putting words into people's mouths and misconstruing. Very nice. "Your life or theirs"--that's a false dichotomy in this case, and a red herring. If I HAD to choose between mine or theirs, I'd say mine. If I don't have to make that choice, I won't.

Quote:

your dirty harry comments are just more of the same rationale for doing nothing. they hold no more water than the titanic did. it's just another weak misconstruing of what i posted. if that's what you require to think you've justified your position, so be it.

Ok, maybe not Dirty Harry--I picked him because he was known for having little respect for the rights of criminals (yes, criminals do have rights). What I'm looking for is some analogous historical or literary figure who is quick to see deadly threats where there aren't any, and doesn't hesitate to use or at least threaten deadly force to prevent someone from taking "so much as a nail." Any suggestions?

BigDaddy40 · #75 02/07/07, 04:15 PM

i posted about what i would do in this situation. it's very clear so i know you can find it. that should clear up all the confusion you have.

was the dirty harry thing after you resumed your civility?

anyway, go and prosper grasshoppper!

hisenthlay · #76 02/07/07, 04:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BigDaddy40

sorry, one more thought lol

it's that kind of thinking that's allowed the criminal gene pool to thrive. they know it and will for sure exploit those that adhere to it.

i seriously question your ability to realize real threats from hollow ones, especially after all the assuming and misconstruing you've done here. if i were you in this situation, i'd just stay in the house and let them take whatever they want. you'll be much safer then lol

reminds me of one wolf terrorizing 400 sheep. it never dawns on the sheep not to run when they so outnumber the wolf

The thing about knowing a real threat from a hollow one--it's a gut feeling thing. I might be a little slower on the trigger than you, but we do have a contingency safety plan in my house that (very generally speaking, here) involves big angry dogs as an early warning and delay system, retreat to a safe space in the home, and immediate use of deadly force if that space is breached. The dogs sleep by us always, and we won't have bedrooms on the first floor, so that there will be time between an intruder entering the house and arriving where we sleep. We also have very creaky floorboards, which help.

Things don't always work out as planned of course, but in theory it's a system that will separate the people looking for some loot from the people looking to do harm. If that plan can't come into play, I'd make a gut decision at the time. I will not put my life at risk over things. To me, that means I will not seek to fight with intruders over things. I knew a woman once whose husband was shot to death by a mugger when the husband fought with the guy trying to run off with his wife's purse. I felt sorry for the widow and her dead husband, but I had to shake my head at the husband's act--the guy was trying to run away with... what, maybe $200 worth of stuff? The husband just had to be a hero and now he's dead. When we heard that story from that poor woman, I asked my fiance to promise to never do anything so stupidly brave as that--just let the purse go. I'd rather have my fiance.

doodlemom · #77 02/07/07, 04:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sol Invictus

because PETA is a terrorist organization. With more support, they will influence lawmakers and change the law. Money talks.
And PETA is against farming of all animals. Total animal liberation is their "goal". Abuse is only one thing that puts you on their radar, you can be the perfect farmer, they will eventually get to you too. You raise animals to eat, you are the enemy.

They are not just kooks and moviestars, they are a very large and powerful lobby.
Oh and they are terrorists.

Manure is required to raise vegetable crops and protein is required to maintain a healthy body.........It just doesn't make sense

BigDaddy40 · #78 02/07/07, 04:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by hisenthlay

The thing about knowing a real threat from a hollow one--it's a gut feeling thing. I might be a little slower on the trigger than you, but we do have a contingency safety plan in my house that (very generally speaking, here) involves big angry dogs as an early warning and delay system, retreat to a safe space in the home, and immediate use of deadly force if that space is breached. The dogs sleep by us always, and we won't have bedrooms on the first floor, so that there will be time between an intruder entering the house and arriving where we sleep. We also have very creaky floorboards, which help.

Things don't always work out as planned of course, but in theory it's a system that will separate the people looking for some loot from the people looking to do harm. If that plan can't come into play, I'd make a gut decision at the time. I will not put my life at risk over things. To me, that means I will not seek to fight with intruders over things. I knew a woman once whose husband was shot to death by a mugger when the husband fought with the guy trying to run off with his wife's purse. I felt sorry for the widow and her dead husband, but I had to shake my head at the husband's act--the guy was trying to run away with... what, maybe $200 worth of stuff? The husband just had to be a hero and now he's dead. When we heard that story from that poor woman, I asked my fiance to promise to never do anything so stupidly brave as that--just let the purse go. I'd rather have my fiance.

for some inane reason you keep insisting that i advocate shooting at threats the same way you've twisted this into a fight over things.

i said they wouldn't take my stuff.

i said the choice on the level of the response to the threat was totally up to them and their actions.

i don't know what else to tell you but you sure are working hard to justify yourself..........

hisenthlay · #79 02/07/07, 05:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BigDaddy40

for some inane reason you keep insisting that i advocate shooting at threats the same way you've twisted this into a fight over things.

i said they wouldn't take my stuff.

i said the choice on the level of the response to the threat was totally up to them and their actions.

i don't know what else to tell you but you sure are working hard to justify yourself..........

Ok, I'll bite. If they didn't heed your firm warnings with weapon drawn not to take your stuff, how exactly do you plan to stop them? To make this more concrete, picture this: you are not standing directly in front of your stuff, they have already "given the impression" that they would hurt you if you try to stop them from taking your stuff, you have already warned them not to take your stuff and have drawn your weapon next to your leg but not pointed it at anyone. They advance towards your stuff, but not towards you, since, like I said, you do not happen to be standing directly in front of your stuff as they start to advance. What do you do next?

This is a sincere question. I want to know what you plan to do that (A) protects your stuff, (B) does not involve you doing the escalating, and (C) does not put you physically more in harm's way than not protecting your stuff would. If there's a good answer, I'd be happy to adopt it as a plan myself.

BigDaddy40 · #80 02/07/07, 05:08 PM

like i said, their actions from the warning forward determines the response. if they've said they would harm me if i tried to stop them (with a gun in my hand no less lol) and actually came forward....i'd stop them. i'm acting on the threat of harm at that point, not the thievery.

there are several people making threats.
they are on the property illegally
they've ignored my warnings
they've threatened to hurt me

i realize that you "higher respect for life" folks mean well but your theories will get you dead one day if, God forbid, you're in one of these situations.

they've proven that they have no respect for my life so i'm playing on their level

get it?

now, a question to you. someone breaks into your house and says they'll hurt you if you resist.

do you defend yourself or not?

same thing