Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
The French need Guns!
Bob Crantz wrote:
Bingo Doug! They are idiots. FreeRepublic is full of them and they don't have a monopoly. Idiots, yes, but many of them are well-armed idiots! "An armed society is a polite society"- Rob't A. Heinlein DSK |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
The French need Guns!
If a raghead was out in front of your house dousing your car with
petrol to be set on fire, wouldn't a suitable response be a well aimed discharge from a high powered rifle? . Unfortunately in most states it's against the law to protect property with deadly force. |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
The French need Guns!
Not in Texas it's not. You can shoot anyone stealing your stuff at
night. And OZ, sorry for the direct e-mail, anyway.. No way could the french have a wild west shootout. All the bad guys have is steel bird shot. The only injuries would be eyes poked out with all th surrender flags. 1100 cars and counting The French Prez Cherak deserves what he gets. Guess he been ignoring the poor muslims in France since he is not getting bribe money from Saddam anymore. I bet Maltolf cocktails are expensive to make in France with gas over 6.00 a liter. Bet they use that skinky whore parfum they splash on to cover the stench. And they might as well put the fires out with that crappy booze they make..Americans are not buying it. Bwahahahahahaaaa. Joe |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
The French need Guns!
"rgnmstr" scribbled thusly:
Unfortunately in most states it's against the law to protect property with deadly force. That depends VERY much on the state. For example, in NC it is legal to shoot a trespasser in your yard, if you have it posted and you have warned the individual. Fortunately, it's not a situation that comes up very often. OzOne wrote: That would be fortunately would it not....can't see a few litres of petrol or a garden gnome being worth a life. I agree, but the problem is that a threat against property can turn into a threat against family very quickly. One of the best things about life in a small town is that large mobs & rioters are not among the threats one has to worry about. DSK |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
The French need Guns!
aaahahahahahahahahahaaaa!!!!!
18-1-704.5. Use of deadly physical force against an intruder. Statute text (1) The general assembly hereby recognizes that the citizens of Colorado have a right to expect absolute safety within their own homes. (2) Notwithstanding the provisions of section 18-1-704, any occupant of a dwelling is justified in using any degree of physical force, including deadly physical force, against another person when that other person has made an unlawful entry into the dwelling, and when the occupant has a reasonable belief that such other person has committed a crime in the dwelling in addition to the uninvited entry, or is committing or intends to commit a crime against a person or property in addition to the uninvited entry, and when the occupant reasonably believes that such other person might use any physical force, no matter how slight, against any occupant. (3) Any occupant of a dwelling using physical force, including deadly physical force, in accordance with the provisions of subsection (2) of this section shall be immune from criminal prosecution for the use of such force. (4) Any occupant of a dwelling using physical force, including deadly physical force, in accordance with the provisions of subsection (2) of this section shall be immune from any civil liability for injuries or death resulting from the use of such force. History Source: L. 85: Entire section added, p. 662, § 1, effective June 6. Annotations Cross references: For limitations on civil suits against persons using physical force in defense of a person or to prevent the commission of a felony, see § 13-80-119. Annotations ANNOTATION Annotations Am. Jur.2d. See 6 Am. Jur.2d, Assault and Battery, §§ 64, 65, 69; 40 Am. Jur.2d, Homicide, §§ 173-176. C.J.S. See 40 C.J.S., Homicide, §§ 100, 101, 109. Law reviews. For article, "Self-Defense in Colorado", see 24 Colo. Law. 2717 (1995). Prerequisite for immunity under this section is an unlawful entry into the dwelling, meaning a knowing, criminal entry. People v. McNeese, 892 P.2d 304 (Colo. 1995). To be immune from prosecution under this section a defendant must establish by a preponderance of the evidence that he or she had a reasonable belief that the intruder was committing or intended to commit a crime against a person or property in addition to the uninvited entry. This inquiry focuses on the reasonable belief of the occupant, not on the actual conduct of the intruder. People v. McNeese, 892 P.2d 304 (Colo. 1995). Sufficient evidence existed to support trial court's denial of defendant's pre-trial motion to dismiss on the basis defendant had not met his burden as established by the supreme court. People v. Janes, 962 P.2d 315 (Colo. App. 1998). Trial court is authorized to dismiss criminal prosecution at pretrial stage when conditions of statute are satisfied, and this does not infringe upon prosecution's discretion to file charges. People v. Guenther, 740 P.2d 971 (Colo. 1987); Young v. District Court, 740 P.2d 982 (Colo. 1987). Defendant bears burden of establishing right to immunity by preponderance of evidence when issue of immunity is raised at pre-trial stage. People v. Guenther, 740 P.2d 971 (Colo. 1987); People v. Eckert, 919 P.2d 962 (Colo. App. 1996). Fact that a homicide victim was on the defendant's porch does not permit the defendant to claim immunity from prosecution for unlawful entry to defendant's dwelling unless the court finds that defendant believed that the victim intended to commit a crime or use physical force against the defendant. People v. Young, 825 P.2d 1004 (Colo. App. 1991). Defendant may still raise immunity as defense at trial when pretrial motion to dismiss is denied. People v. Guenther, 740 P.2d 971 (Colo. 1987). For purposes of this section, the common areas of an apartment building do not constitute a dwelling. People v. Cushinberry, 855 P.2d 18 (Colo. App. 1993). Where pretrial motion to dismiss on grounds of statutory immunity provided in this section is denied, defendant may raise it as an affirmative defense at trial. In such case, the burden of proof which is generally applicable to affirmative defenses would apply. People v. Malczewski, 744 P.2d 62 (Colo. 1987). Because this section creates an immunity defense as well as an affirmative defense, and because the burden of proof for each defense is different, when raised at trial, this section poses special problems when instructing a jury. In such a case, instruction based on language from People v. McNeese, which dealt with pretrial immunity, must be put into context so as not to confuse or mislead the jury about the burden of proof with respect to an affirmative defense raised at trial. People v. Janes, 982 P.2d 300 (Colo. 1999). Defendant did not establish by a preponderance of the evidence that he was entitled to immunity under this section where he could not show the struggle and wounding of the victim took place in defendant's bedroom of the house he shared with the victim. People v. Eckert, 919 P.2d 962 (Colo. App. 1996). Trial court did not commit reversible error by refusing to instruct the jury that it need only determine whether the victim made an unlawful entry into a part of a dwelling that was occupied by defendant, as defendant failed to show that the bedroom was exclusively his province and that the victim's entry into the bedroom was unlawful. People v. Eckert, 919 P.2d 962 (Colo. App. 1996). Instruction requiring jury to find that defendant had a reasonable belief that victim "had committed" a crime and omitting "was committing or intended to commit" a crime was erroneous but did not constitute plain error. There was no evidence that the victim's entry into defendant's house was unlawful and, therefore, no basis on which a reasonable jury could have otherwise acquitted defendant under this section. People v. Phillips, 91 P.3d 476 (Colo. App. 2004). Trial court erred in interpreting subsection (2) as including the concept of "remain lawfully" within the statutory phrase "unlawful entry". Defendant failed to establish the legal elements of this section to bar prosecution where the victim was initially invited into defendant's residence and, after arguing, was later asked to leave. People v. Drennon, 860 P.2d 589 (Colo. App. 1993). The reference to "uninvited entry" in subsection (2) refers back to the term "unlawful entry" used in the same subsection. People v. McNeese, 892 P.2d 304 (Colo. 1995). Victim's entry was unlawful and uninvited for the purposes of statute providing immunity for use of force where wife of murder victim did not have authority to invite the decedent into defendant's apartment and was staying with the defendant on the condition that she not invite the victim into defendant's apartment. People v. McNeese, 865 P.2d 881 (Colo. App. 1993). When this section is being used as an affirmative defense, it is error for a jury instruction to place the burden on the defendant to prove the affirmative defense. People v. Janes, 962 P.2d 315 (Colo. App. 1998). Applied in People v. Arellano, 743 P.2d 431 (Colo. 1987). OzOne wrote in message ... On 8 Nov 2005 14:31:09 -0800, "rgnmstr" scribbled thusly: Unfortunately in most states it's against the law to protect property with deadly force. That would be fortunately would it not....can't see a few litres of petrol or a garden gnome being worth a life. Oz1...of the 3 twins. I welcome you to crackerbox palace,We've been expecting you. |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
The French need Guns!
18-12-203. Criteria for obtaining a permit.
Statute text (1) Beginning May 17, 2003, except as otherwise provided in this section, a sheriff shall issue a permit to carry a concealed handgun to an applicant who: (a) Is a legal resident of the state of Colorado. For purposes of this part 2, a person who is a member of the armed forces and is stationed pursuant to permanent duty station orders at a military installation in this state, and a member of the person's immediate family living in Colorado, shall be deemed to be a legal resident of the state of Colorado. (b) Is twenty-one years of age or older; (c) Is not ineligible to possess a firearm pursuant to section 18-12-108 or federal law; (d) Has not been convicted of perjury under section 18-8-503, in relation to information provided or deliberately omitted on a permit application submitted pursuant to this part 2; (e) (I) Does not chronically and habitually use alcoholic beverages to the extent that the applicant's normal faculties are impaired. (II) The prohibition specified in this paragraph (e) shall not apply to an applicant who provides an affidavit, signed by a professional counselor who is licensed pursuant to article 43 of title 12, C.R.S., and specializes in alcohol addiction, stating that the applicant has been evaluated by the counselor and has been determined to be a recovering alcoholic who has refrained from using alcohol for at least three years. (f) Is not an unlawful user of or addicted to a controlled substance as defined in section 18-18-102 (5). Whether an applicant is an unlawful user of or addicted to a controlled substance shall be determined as provided in federal law and regulations. (g) Is not subject to: (I) A protection order issued pursuant to section 18-1-1001 or section 19-2-707, C.R.S., that is in effect at the time the application is submitted; or (II) A permanent protection order issued pursuant to article 14 of title 13, C.R.S.; or (III) A temporary protection order issued pursuant to article 14 of title 13, C.R.S., that is in effect at the time the application is submitted; (h) Demonstrates competence with a handgun by submitting: (I) Evidence of experience with a firearm through participation in organized shooting competitions or current military service; (II) Evidence that, at the time the application is submitted, the applicant is a certified instructor; (III) Proof of honorable discharge from a branch of the United States armed forces within the three years preceding submittal of the application; (IV) Proof of honorable discharge from a branch of the United States armed forces that reflects pistol qualifications obtained within the ten years preceding submittal of the application; (V) A certificate showing retirement from a Colorado law enforcement agency that reflects pistol qualifications obtained within the ten years preceding submittal of the application; or (VI) A training certificate from a handgun training class obtained within the ten years preceding submittal of the application. The applicant shall submit the original training certificate or a photocopy thereof that includes the original signature of the class instructor. In obtaining a training certificate from a handgun training class, the applicant shall have discretion in selecting which handgun training class to complete. (2) Regardless of whether an applicant meets the criteria specified in subsection (1) of this section, if the sheriff has a reasonable belief that documented previous behavior by the applicant makes it likely the applicant will present a danger to self or others if the applicant receives a permit to carry a concealed handgun, the sheriff may deny the permit. (3) (a) The sheriff shall deny, revoke, or refuse to renew a permit if an applicant or a permittee fails to meet one of the criteria listed in subsection (1) of this section and may deny, revoke, or refuse to renew a permit on the grounds specified in subsection (2) of this section. (b) Following issuance of a permit, if the issuing sheriff has a reasonable belief that a permittee no longer meets the criteria specified in subsection (1) of this section or that the permittee presents a danger as described in subsection (2) of this section, the sheriff shall suspend the permit until such time as the matter is resolved and the issuing sheriff determines that the permittee is eligible to possess a permit as provided in this section. (c) If the sheriff suspends or revokes a permit, the sheriff shall notify the permittee in writing, stating the grounds for suspension or revocation and informing the permittee of the right to seek a second review by the sheriff, to submit additional information for the record, and to seek judicial review pursuant to section 18-12-207. History Source: L. 2003: Entire part added, p. 638, § 1, effective May 17. L. 2004: (1)(g) amended, p. 1198, § 52, effective August 4. GUNS!!! GUNS!!!!!!!!! GUNS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! EVERYBODY GOT AT LEAST ONE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! OzOne wrote in message ... On 8 Nov 2005 14:31:09 -0800, "rgnmstr" scribbled thusly: Unfortunately in most states it's against the law to protect property with deadly force. That would be fortunately would it not....can't see a few litres of petrol or a garden gnome being worth a life. Oz1...of the 3 twins. I welcome you to crackerbox palace,We've been expecting you. |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
The French need Guns!
and balls.
and deodorant |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
The French need Guns!
"DSK" wrote in message ... Bob Crantz wrote: Great gun thread: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1517898/posts Most of the guys posting in this thread are pretty stupid IMHO. They're arguing over what kind of SLR to use to hold a mob away from their house? Right on Doug, I was thinking 12ga. pump from the beginning. Scotty |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
The French need Guns!
The French need more than guns. They need immigration reform. You can't take someone from the 7th century and make them fit into the 21st. "Bob Crantz" wrote If a raghead was out in front of your house dousing your car with petrol to be set on fire, wouldn't a suitable response be a well aimed discharge from a high powered rifle? Unhindered private ownership of firearms is a major step in combating terrorism. Free men own guns! Amen! |
#20
|
|||
|
|||
The French need Guns!
"Bart Senior" .@. wrote in message The French need more than guns. They need immigration reform. You can't take someone from the 7th century and make them fit into the 21st. Give me a bottle of Overproof ... and I'll show you how quick I go "7th Century"!!! :-) CM |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
We beat the French - 200 years ago!! | Tall Ships | |||
French bashing chicken | General |