Fallguy

From opencarry.org I didn't realize how in the minority we were.

Agreed.

LOL...you know I wouldn't pick on ya if I didn't like ya Dixie....

Well Yes and No. It depends on what the property owner says. If they say they simply don't want you to be armed while on their property, you're right, you would only be trespassing if you came back armed. But they could say they do not want you back on their property period...then you would be trespassing by simply returning period. Of course I don't see too many property owners doing that unless there is some type of confrontation with them. LOL...and you're right about the shotgun.

Believe it or not according to the news report I say the deputy is actually a "her".

There wouldn't be anything the patrolling officer could do since you have broken no law. About all he could do is make sure you understand that the property owner does not want you there while armed and if you return you could be charged with trespassing. Even then it would have to be the property owner to press the trespassing charge, not the officer.

Ok..I admit..I am one that in this thread is saying shoot and in another saying only when in reasonable fear of serious bodily harm or death. That is because in the other thread I was giving my opinion as to how I interpret the law. In this thread I am giving my opinion in what I personally believe to be right and what I think the law should be. I have also stated in this thread that as the law stands now, this guy was not legally justified in shooting at these people.

Wow...I know someone in Missoula too. Very small world at times.

Thank you Dixie. A kid strolling through the yard does not have a armful of my stuff from my shed. I did say in the act of stealing something...not just being within sight. I by no means meant to shoot on site someone just standing in my yard. Although that is legal after dark in TX. Also....I would not shoot someone over some cheap yard ornament, I was just trying to point out to some degree the value of the object is irrelevant, it belongs to me, not them. I do know the laws of TN and feel I have a pretty decent grip on when it is ok to shoot and not. I agree, in this radiator case, the guy had no legal right to shoot. I think some are just pointing out in other states he would have, and some (like me) wish we could in TN. I will also say if you are on my land, you have a decent chance of being confronted by me while I'm armed. Even though I may not can use it, unless and/or until you threaten me directly. ...and FYI the law does say you can threaten the degree of force necessary to prevent the theft or stop the trespass. But that you can only use deadly force as it would apply to self-defense.

LOL...yeah hadn't even noticed that was on there...not sure where I actually came across it from.

You are NOT innocent if you are on my land taking my property!! If you are not on my land taking my stuff, I will not shoot you. How many innocent people would be killed following that logic? You have absolutely no right, privilege or anything to be on my land without my conncent...and damn sure don't have any right to take something that doesn't belong to you...even it if it $0.99 lollipop reflector.

Here are some...of course to my knowledge none are members of this forum.

.........

You could be the first.... Unless you count that pic of you, I and PackingMama that I already posted..

I do the same thing, don't own any long guns, don't hunt (although I have not problem with it) so I don't hardly ever check those. As far as being decisive....since I like you so much Dixie...I'll leave that alone...

Fair enough.... But "I" do advocate, would vote for, would support and believe in the the ability to use deadly force to protect property! But considering how hard it is to get the unreasonable restrictions removed in for HCP holder's I doubt I would ever see a bill to allow deadly force for the protection of property in my lifetime.

I 1000% agree!!!! ...and you beat me to the punch about that it would have been legal in TX. Now do I feel that a human life is worth a radiator, a TV, a utility trailer..the list goes on... No, but I don't make that choice, the thief makes that choice when he decides to steal. I truly believe over time thefts would decrease if the thief thought they might be legally shot for doing so. As far as aboirtion and two counts of murder....I am against aborition..that is why I am against the double standard that it is ok for the mom to kill the baby, but if an outside person does it, it is murder. I will admint I doubt even the mother could get a partial-birth abortion at 8 months.

Damn straight with a baseball bat I will put them down. As far as any other thing they may have in their hand...I'm not saying don't shoot...or to shoot for that matter. That is up to you. I'm just saying to remember you may have to defend your actions at later time, in front of people who may or may not believe in the right to carry, who will not be under the stress you were at the time and so on and so on.

BOTH very good points brian!

As with a lot of these type questions, I don't think there is any standard, 100% correct answer. Of course we all know the legal answer to the use of deadly force is if you are "in reasonable fear for great bodily harm or death." Now does someone using or threatening to use one of those type devices pose a reasonable risk of great bodily harm or death to you? Well that is the question isn't, it? In general my opinion would be, No. They are considered "less than lethal" weapons and are designed not to do permanent damage. Of course there have been recent news stories of people dying after being shot with a taser by authorities. So one could attempt to argue they were in fear of great bodily harm or death. In the end it would be up to your twelve peers to decide.

Very good points. Just because you see a sign at national brand store, doesn't mean it is the policy of the national chain. In some cases they company may not even know the local store has posted and on rare occasions the sign could go against the national chain's policy. So not a bad idea to talk with the local manger first and then move on up the chain if you are really unhappy about it to see if you can get it changed.

Very true!

Very true Mike...and that's even assuming that 100% of 3% would always agree.

In a round about way Engloid brings up a point. In that it is when a company does fire you for a reason that it can get in more trouble than if they just fire you period. The key for them is not to state a reason, but to just let you go. But if the let you go for reason "X". You may or may not be able to prove reason X was wrong, prejicicual, inaccurate etc....

LOL...don't you wish. If I was either, but a lot of people would turn up at any M&G I was at...lol