Relatively safe? That's what I thought. All of a sudden the little thugs are breaking into houses and cars like crazy here in my little rural slice of VA. Talked to a trooper the other day and he said "Well around here, if we, or the County police don't get them soon, well be picking them up just inside someone's door and putting them in a body bag."
Barry Burke responds:
Not my problem, though. They refused to change the area to one I needed--I could roam throughout the PA, NY, OH, NE area, but before I got out of WV going south it was 2 bucks a minute. Damned near everyone I'd want to call on a mobile phone is in VA and south so I wanted to swap areas. No deal, according to AT&T. I did not want to add areas, or even get extra area.
Their costs were the same after I dropped the account as before, so there's not exactly a lot of problem that I can see with changing it before they pissed me off. They didn't. Now they don't get my $39.95 a month, period. Nor does anyone else, of course, but what the hell.
Charlie Self "Work like you don't need the money. Love like you've never been hurt. Dance like nobody's watching." Satchel Paige
At least it keeps down the number of repeat offenders. Last time I cocked my Colt in somebody's ear they dropped a load. Made them clean it up before I turned them over to the police. Better than cleaning them off the ceiling.
Dave in Fairfax
This is the primary reason I have a system. By the time neighbors notice smoke, it might be too late.
I have standard smoke and heat detectors, which I blow out with canned air on a regular basis. I've found that my detectors usually falsely trigger when dirty, others may not.
On occasion, I'll test the smoke heads with the canned stuff sold in hardware stores and see how long the monitoring company's response takes.
Barry
*MOST* states have a "fleeing felon" statute, which makes any party who commits a felony 'fair game' AS THEY ARE LEAVING THE SCENE.
Simple 'trespassing' is almost always a misdemeanor. as is "Simple B&E". "Larceny in the Night Time" is a different story.
|In article , |BRuce wrote: |>understood, works about the same way here in NC. We did have a big case |>a few years ago where a guy found a group of teens stealing stuff from |>his garage and shot one of them in the back. Case went to court and he |>was found guilty because they did not pose a threat to him but judge |>gave him a suspended sentence due to circumstances. I wouldn't want the |>aggravation of a court appearance so i would probably wait for them to |>com back for "seconds" and shoot them on the way in. :-) |>
| |*MOST* states have a "fleeing felon" statute, which makes any party who |commits a felony 'fair game' AS THEY ARE LEAVING THE SCENE.
Don't try that in Arizona. In fact defense of *property* using deadly force is seldom justified. In the case of arson maybe, otherwise I don't think so.
See:
Another example: ARS 13-3102 (F) specifically says that a weapon can be carried concealed in a means of transportation in a holster, scabbard or case designed to carry the weapon. Yet people are routinely charged and convicted for doing just that.
My concealed carry instructor (retired sheriff's weapons training officer) told us that even though I have a permit, if my weapon is in the glove compartment and I have a passenger who doesn't have a permit, they "have immediate access" and can be charged. So my usual passenger SWMBO has her permit too.
charlie penned...Don't kid yourself. A basement full of water is less fun than a swimming pool.
I figured that's what he meant. I have looked at these in the past, in connection with a shutoff switch for my water softenener, as it empties into the sump. If my sump pump fails, my basement would flood with salt water. Not good.
Joe
I've never heard of my local DA prosecuting anyone for using force against a home invader.
IMHO, you break in to someone's home, you take your chances. Nothing would've happened if the perp hadn't chosen to commit a crime.
Is it any wonder their stock has dropped like a rock since the IPO? [See the article in this week's Newsweek.]
In my case, they stiffed me for $50 of unused time. I'd refreshed my account via their Web site the day my account was to expire and they said all was copacetic. The next day I couldn't use the phone. I found that the fine print in the contract says that one's account expires at midnight the day /before/ the "expiration date" and the Web site had blithely taken my renewal and pitched it into the dirty bit bucket. When I suggested that they could be a bit lenient, I was told, in effect, tough cookies.
I received a (form) letter awhile back from them asking if I would be interested in becoming a customer again. I fired off a missive suggesting that if they treated their existing customers better, they wouldn't have so many ex-customers.
Big Joe responds:
For a fact. That might even be worse than the sloshing mess in my basement after the fire. Good fortune in one respect: one piece of CPVC in the entire copper and cast iron system, and it was not to far from where the fire started. It eventually melted and put the fire mostly out before the fire department was even called.
But, jeez, whadda mess!
Charlie Self "To create man was a quaint and original idea, but to add the sheep was tautology." Mark Twain's Notebook
Everett Greene responds:
Yeah, well basically that's the answer I got when I wanted to roam south instead of north. Not both. Just a different one. Couldn't do it. Wouldn't do it. So I cancelled and a week or so later, get a note saying they'd be glad to make that arrangement. By now, of course, damned near everyone was beginning to offer 'no roaming charges' for huge areas, so it would have been simple to pick up another company, but...I found I didn't miss the cell phone, which I used to forget and leave home some 80% of the time anyway. Why pay $40 a month for something that gets used less than an hour a week?
That's the MBA model: hype until you pump the initial figures, then sit back do nothing unitl it collapses around your ears, at which time you wind up the hype machine again.
Charlie Self "To create man was a quaint and original idea, but to add the sheep was tautology." Mark Twain's Notebook
I ahve a detached shop, 10 feet from house. I bought a cheap motion detector alarm that makes a loud local only alarm. The delay is set at
10 seconds. When I got it I had several of the local kids(potiential theives) into the shop and forgot to disable the alarm. I them asked them to wait, went inside , then walked out with the portable phone in hand. I pretended to be talking the the sheriff office to report a false alarm. I really sold the act to the kids. Have had no trouble since then. If a new kid comes to the neighborhood and comes to the house I make sure he sees the alarm.Preception is a key to security.
charlie wrote ... Good fortune in one respect: one piece of CPVC in the entire
I had a similar incident with my first car back in the early eighties. My "friend" got sick of waiting for me to say goodbye to a girlfriend, and decided to take my car for a joy ride through the leaf piles in the neighborhood. It was one of those fall days where everyone has raked their leaves into the street for the city to come by and suck up with one of those oversized shop-vacs. He discovered how fun it is to go bouncing off them at 30mph. Later as we were driving home, you guessed it, flames start shooting out from under the hood as I'm heading down the main drag. We start arguing over whether the fire would get worse if I pulled over or if I kept driving. It was a short argument and I pulled over into a parking lot, opened the hood, and woooffff, the fire indeed got worse. I ran to a nearby office building and got the janitor to bring out a bucket of water. When we got back to the car, the fire was out. It burned through the radiator hose and put itself out. A few weeks later as I was attempting to repair the damage in the engine compartment (what would be a lost cause), I inspected the fuel line to find it had nearly burned through. Made me wonder if the engineers designed the radiator hose to burn through quicker.
Joe
JOAT responds:
Or NY. NY used to have, and probably still does, a "retreat until no retreat is possible" piece of bullshit in its laws.
What makes more sense to me: in Roanoke, VA some years ago (5?), a guy followed a woman home, kicked down the door to her home and was entering. She shot and killed him. No charges filed.
Charlie Self "To create man was a quaint and original idea, but to add the sheep was tautology." Mark Twain's Notebook
You realize of course, that I've been asking these alarm questions because I'm scoping out areas for my next nocturnal visit. Now which of you guys has an outdoor shop with no steps and a door that's at least 27" wide? :)
now that is the way it should work. "imminent danger" seems to be the key word and if somebody kicks in your door I would hope that would be "imminent danger" enough.
let's hope it doesn't happen to any of us,
BRuce
Charlie Self wrote:
13-410. Justification; use of deadly physical force in law enforcement A. The threatened use of deadly physical force by a person against another is justified pursuant to section 13-409 only if a reasonable person effecting the arrest or preventing the escape would believe the suspect or escapee is: ... 3. A felon who is fleeing from justice or resisting arrest with physical force. You're trying to effect a "citizen's arrest", and/or prevent their escape and fleeing from justice. Note: the title of the section does _not_ refer to 'sworn law enforcement _officers_'
NO, that is -not- what the law says. it says: 13-413. No civil liability for justified conduct No person in this state shall be subject to civil liability for engaging in conduct otherwise justified pursuant to the provisions of this chapter. Now that leaves OPEN the question of "whether or not" the conduct _was_ "justified pursuant to the provisions of this chapter".
If the conduct _is_ found to be justified, then there is no liability, and thus no damages can be awarded.
*IF*, on the other hand, the conduct is *not* actually "justified", then the party _is_ subject to civil liability.If the authors of statute mean "a lawsuit on this basis cannot be won", they will state something like "immune from civil lawsuit for any actions taken in the good-faith belief that they were permitted under this section".
Such a statute doesn't _prevent_ a suit from being filed, but the defense merely has to assert that they "Believed in good faith" that their actions were covered, and request summary dismissal therefore. Given such language in statute, the court would have little recourse but _to_ grant the dismissal.
NIT PICK, 13-3102 (F) does -not- say carried "concealed". And -that-, I expect is the issue. 13-3102 (A) (2) forbids a concealed weapon where a person w/o a permit has immediate control and access. 13-3102 (F) is, unfortunately, somewhat ambiguous as to _exactly_ what sets of circumstances render 13-3102 (A) (2) inapplicable.
There is: (A) a 'laundry list' of 'containers' that is specifically enumerated. followed by, (B) a qualifier "in a means of transportation", with a second qualifier, (C) "in a storage compartment... in a means of transportation."
What is *not* clear is the _precise_ relationship among these three things. It _could_ be that: both qualifiers apply -only- to the last 'container' named in the 'laundry list'; that if it is in one of the other containers named, that the qualifications do not apply. the 1st qualifier applies only to the last named 'container' only, and the 2nd qualifier applies to _all_ the named containers. both qualifiers apply to all the named containers. the 1st qualifier applies to the last named container only, and the 2nd qualifier applies _regardless_ of whether it is actually in one of the named containers the 1st qualifier applies to any named container, and the 2nd qualifier applies _regardless_ of whether it is actually in one of the named containers the named container list applies _regardless_ of location, _and_ either qualifier applies _regardless_ of whether it is in one of the named containers, or not
I wouldn't want to guess _which_ of those alternatives the framers of the statute actually 'intended'.
A 'rational' reading of 13-3108 (F) WOULD seem to indicate that -neither- of you need a permit, given that the weapon is in the appropriate container, and _in_the_glovebox_.
Upscale asks:
One door 48" wide, one 95".
Motion activated outdoor lights. Small dog that doesn't yap, but does bark at intruders. Old Mossberg in bedroom with window that has straight-on view of both doors. And age has me sleeping lightly.
Charlie Self "To create man was a quaint and original idea, but to add the sheep was tautology." Mark Twain's Notebook
one 36" and one 60" and a marlin 22 that I use to shoot squirrels at 20 yards, head shots only... the shop doors are MUCH closer than that and I would image your head being larger than the local squirrel. :-)
Don't mess with my Unisaw!
BRuce
Upscale wrote:
HomeOwnersHub website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.