Civility: Pro-Scott Walker Signs on Private Property Burned in Wisconsin [Archive] - Glock Talk

PDA

View Full Version : Civility: Pro-Scott Walker Signs on Private Property Burned in Wisconsin


stsai465
05-16-2012, 11:11
More civility from the left; basically if you have a sign on your own private property supporting Scott Walker in WI, you risk getting it burned down.

The Fox Point Police Department said they've had several complaints of burned Walker signs and in response, they plan to put out extra patrols.

Rest here:
http://townhall.com/tipsheet/katiepavlich/2012/05/16/civility_proscott_walker_signs_on_private_property_burned_in_wisconsin

These SEIU fools better be careful; IIRC, WI just recently passed CCW and setting fire onto someone's property certainly should count as a legitimate crime in progress.

G29Reload
05-16-2012, 11:20
Arson is a felony and should be responded to just a MWAG.

Union thugs. One more reason never to vote Dem.

G17Jake
05-16-2012, 17:29
No surprise, that's the way unions are.

Flintlocker
05-16-2012, 17:35
Damn hippies; Romney should pin them down and chop off their hair.

fortyofforty
05-16-2012, 17:41
Typical Natso tactics. Haven't changed since the 1920s.

G17Jake
05-16-2012, 18:26
Damn hippies; Romney should pin them down and chop off their hair.

This is a thread about vandalism in Wisconsin.

fortyofforty
05-16-2012, 18:30
This is a thread about vandalism in Wisconsin.

Rules for Radicals. Don't be surprised by Natso tactics, in Wisconsin or on GT.

Cavalry Doc
05-16-2012, 19:58
Arson is destruction of tangible property.

In Texas.......

SUBCHAPTER D. PROTECTION OF PROPERTY

Sec. 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, Sec. 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1974. Amended by Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 900, Sec. 1.01, eff. Sept. 1, 1994.


Sec. 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, Sec. 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1974. Amended by Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 900, Sec. 1.01, eff. Sept. 1, 1994.


Sec. 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, Sec. 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1974. Amended by Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 900, Sec. 1.01, eff. Sept. 1, 1994.

Brucev
05-16-2012, 20:22
Stupid answer... shooting someone, etc. over a campaign sign. Why. Great way to present your side as a bunch of trigger happy crazies. Just the thing you'd want to see on the 30 minute news cycle of the msm. Smart answer... put up more signs.

Cavalry Doc
05-16-2012, 20:32
Stupid answer... shooting someone, etc. over a campaign sign. Why. Great way to present your side as a bunch of trigger happy crazies. Just the thing you'd want to see on the 30 minute news cycle of the msm. Smart answer... put up more signs.

Whoever said I would shoot them or that someone should?

I'm saying in under the right circumstances, it would be legal to use deadly force to protect ones property from arson.

If you'll search back, or remember when we had this conversation when you were someone else, you'll see that I have always advocated only shooting people that you absolutely must shoot. I've often stated, that the deductible on my truck is cheaper than a trip to the grand jury. All homicides, justified or not, go to the grand jury in Texas. Letting someone steal my truck would be cheaper by far.

Besides, I'll have it all on the surveillance DVR, and as long as they didn't endanger my home (a threat to life is a different story), I'd let the cops handle it.

http://i127.photobucket.com/albums/p158/CavalryDoc/desktop-2.png

Brucev
05-16-2012, 22:18
[QUOTE=Cavalry Doc;18976109]Whoever said I would shoot them or that someone should? I responded to the your in the light of the text you highlighted.

I'm saying in under the right circumstances, it would be legal to use deadly force to protect ones property from arson.

If you'll search back, or remember when we had this conversation when you were someone else, you'll see that I have always advocated only shooting people that you absolutely must shoot. I've often stated, that the deductible on my truck is cheaper than a trip to the grand jury. All homicides, justified or not, go to the grand jury in Texas. Letting someone steal my truck would be cheaper by far. You are confused as to my identity. My post have always been clearly identified as is this one. Do not suppose that the tactics of others or possibly yourself are necessarily used by those with whom you take issue. It would be very much an error.

Besides, I'll have it all on the surveillance DVR, and as long as they didn't endanger my home (a threat to life is a different story), I'd let the cops handle it.

http://i127.photobucket.com/albums/p158/CavalryDoc/desktop-2.png

certifiedfunds
05-16-2012, 22:40
Well, that was a pile of garbage.

fortyofforty
05-17-2012, 04:49
Damn hippies; Romney should pin them down and chop off their hair.

Careful or Odumbo will eat their dogs. Or maybe he'll shove them off the property, after coming off a drug-crazed bender.

JFrame
05-17-2012, 05:09
Rules for Radicals. Don't be surprised by Natso tactics, in Wisconsin or on GT.


Excellent point... :thumbsup:


.