Deadly Force

[cowboydoc]

Dan,
I don't know if I'm disagreeing with you or not but the old well was boarded up. The guy was messing around it and fell in. There isn't any law here regarding that you do or don't have to fill it in. Regardless you shouldn't have to bombproof your place for trespassers!!! Under the same law you could be held liable if the guy that was shooting the gun hurt himself or someone else. It's ridiculous if you ask me.

 

[dmccarty]

Cowboydoc,

We are agreeing. /w3tcompact/icons/smile.gif I could see that the landowner would have a problem if they had an open unprotected hole in the ground. What if some kid got lost, walked into the property, fell into the hole and died long, lingering death?

But if the hole is covered. I would hope the landowner would be covered, so to speak. /w3tcompact/icons/smile.gif Maybe the insurance company just paid up to get rid of the lawsuit?

Any tresspassers I catch will have to talk to the sheriff deputy. It will be up to the deputy to make an arrest. I'm afraid I'm just going to have to be a total $%^&*( about tresspassers otherwise I'll continually have problems and I don't want to be dragged into a lawsuit.

It really is terrible that landowners can be victimized twice by a tresspasser. But that's the system..... /w3tcompact/icons/frown.gif

Later...
Dan McCarty

 

[cowboydoc]

I guess my only problem Dan is that it's a system that was not created by the people and for the people. It was created by lawyers who want their 30 or 40%. Look around the world and we are the ONLY country in the world that allows these crazy lawsuits to happen. I have no problem with lawyers and have some great friends who are ones but this craziness with these multi-million dollar suits for something as stupid as burning your mouth on hot coffee has got to stop.

 

[Anonymous Poster]

Cowboydoc,

Can't follow your thinking here: /w3tcompact/icons/crazy.gif
1. [[[ ...it's a system that was not created by the people and for the people. It was created by lawyers who want their 30 or 40%.]]]

2. [[[ I have no problem with lawyers ... ]]]

Don't understand how both statements can be true for ANYONE! /w3tcompact/icons/blush.gif

When the "lawmaking" of our country is perverted from an attempt to best-serve the citizens, ...to an attempt to best-serve the special interests of manipulative attorneys, I VERY MUCH "have a problem with lawyers"! /w3tcompact/icons/mad.gif

I think statement 1 is correct.
Don't see statement 2 as an appropriate reaction to statement 1!

I can only imagine that your "friends" are some other (rare) kind of lawyers. Maybe my dad was right.

He always said it wasn't fair to blame them all, ...for what only 99% of them are like! /w3tcompact/icons/wink.gif

Larry

 

[Von]

Larry,
How do you come up with such a low figure of 99%! I would think Its more like 99.9999%!

Von

 

[Anonymous Poster]

Von /w3tcompact/icons/laugh.gif

Sometimes I feel like I should try to be at-least-a-little-bit "nice" /w3tcompact/icons/crazy.gif

Honest opinion? ... your figure's probly closer! /w3tcompact/icons/wink.gif

Larry

 

[ERNIEB]

Isn't it England where they use a "loser pays" system? i.e. The loser pays for all legal expenses and court costs of the winner. Wouldn't such a system make people think twice about filing these frivolous lawsuits?

Ernie

 

[scruffy]

Ernie,
A Minor problem with that system, as I see it, is many valid suits would not be brought due to an individuals perception of the vagarities of justice. Only the wealthy could afford to take the chance, especially with the jury selections having moved to the realm of calculated choices, instead of random chance.

 

[Bird]

ErnieB, that's about the system we have in Texas now, (but only for the medical profession - they got the legislature to protect them, but not the rest of us). So, like Scruffy said, only the wealthy are going to win.

Bird

 

[GrantMO]

In my opinion, the pendulum of our society has swung very much to the rights of criminals and away from victim's rights. Because of that I would be cautious using deadly force except as spelled out by state law. As someone else pointed out whether someone gets prosecuted for using deadly force depends on the thinking of the DA, case law, politics of the case, and public sentiment. Defending my loved ones and myself is one thing, and probably an instinct at that. Using deadly force to defend my car or livestock or other property is something else. I'm not saying it's wrong to do that just that I don't have the time and money to be tied up in the legal system for such an action.

Grant