Democrat Neighbor Electrocuted THEN Charged with Trespassing

[Ringel05]

That's not the point, the point is booby trapping personal property for any reason is illegal. I suspect the video is staged (and funny) but why open yourself to a potential law suit and, or criminal charges unless one is seriously stupid?

If not staged, how about the guy in the blue sweat shirt stay the fuck off private property and not try to steal something that doesn't belong to him.

No shit Sparky, he should have stayed off the property and not attempted to steal that. You win a cupie doll for figuring that out.

I'm not the one having a problem with the OWNER of the property trying to protect it from a thief.

Neither am I. It seems you're another one of those idiots who want's to read into as opposed to read.......

I don't have a problem if the owner shoots the piece of shit trying to steal from him.

I don't have a problem with it either but in most states and localities the owner would end up facing murder charges unless he was defending himself.
Now try real hard to think, I know it's difficult for you but I'm not advocating for the criminal, simply stating what is a factual possibility in some states and localities.
Not advocating means I'm not taking that side just in case you didn't know what that means.......

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

That's not the point, the point is booby trapping personal property for any reason is illegal. I suspect the video is staged (and funny) but why open yourself to a potential law suit and, or criminal charges unless one is seriously stupid?

If not staged, how about the guy in the blue sweat shirt stay the fuck off private property and not try to steal something that doesn't belong to him.

No shit Sparky, he should have stayed off the property and not attempted to steal that. You win a cupie doll for figuring that out.

I'm not the one having a problem with the OWNER of the property trying to protect it from a thief.

Neither am I. It seems you're another one of those idiots who want's to read into as opposed to read.......

I don't have a problem if the owner shoots the piece of shit trying to steal from him.

Rock salt loads. Before the age of lawsuits, it was a great way to deal with pests without killing them.

 

[Ringel05]

If not staged, how about the guy in the blue sweat shirt stay the fuck off private property and not try to steal something that doesn't belong to him.

No shit Sparky, he should have stayed off the property and not attempted to steal that. You win a cupie doll for figuring that out.

I'm not the one having a problem with the OWNER of the property trying to protect it from a thief.

Neither am I. It seems you're another one of those idiots who want's to read into as opposed to read.......

I don't have a problem if the owner shoots the piece of shit trying to steal from him.

Rock salt loads. Before the age of lawsuits, it was a great way to deal with pests without killing them.

Wow, looks like you beginning to figure it out. I'm impressed, truly I am, didn't think you had it in you........

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

If not staged, how about the guy in the blue sweat shirt stay the fuck off private property and not try to steal something that doesn't belong to him.

No shit Sparky, he should have stayed off the property and not attempted to steal that. You win a cupie doll for figuring that out.

I'm not the one having a problem with the OWNER of the property trying to protect it from a thief.

Neither am I. It seems you're another one of those idiots who want's to read into as opposed to read.......

I don't have a problem if the owner shoots the piece of shit trying to steal from him.

I don't have a problem with it either but in most states and localities the owner would end up facing murder charges unless he was defending himself.
Now try real hard to think, I know it's difficult for you but I'm not advocating for the criminal, simply stating what is a factual possibility in some states and localities.
Not advocating means I'm not taking that side just in case you didn't know what that means.......

You wanted to jail him for electrocuting the Democrat but now you think he should be able to shoot him? You're just all over the place.

 

[Conservative65]

If not staged, how about the guy in the blue sweat shirt stay the fuck off private property and not try to steal something that doesn't belong to him.

No shit Sparky, he should have stayed off the property and not attempted to steal that. You win a cupie doll for figuring that out.

I'm not the one having a problem with the OWNER of the property trying to protect it from a thief.

Neither am I. It seems you're another one of those idiots who want's to read into as opposed to read.......

I don't have a problem if the owner shoots the piece of shit trying to steal from him.

I don't have a problem with it either but in most states and localities the owner would end up facing murder charges unless he was defending himself.
Now try real hard to think, I know it's difficult for you but I'm not advocating for the criminal, simply stating what is a factual possibility in some states and localities.
Not advocating means I'm not taking that side just in case you didn't know what that means.......

So people should be able to steal without worrying about consequences?

 

[Conservative65]

If not staged, how about the guy in the blue sweat shirt stay the fuck off private property and not try to steal something that doesn't belong to him.

No shit Sparky, he should have stayed off the property and not attempted to steal that. You win a cupie doll for figuring that out.

I'm not the one having a problem with the OWNER of the property trying to protect it from a thief.

Neither am I. It seems you're another one of those idiots who want's to read into as opposed to read.......

I don't have a problem if the owner shoots the piece of shit trying to steal from him.

Rock salt loads. Before the age of lawsuits, it was a great way to deal with pests without killing them.

Sad part is the age of lawsuits enables criminals to sue because they suffered a consequence during the commission of a crime.

 

[Ringel05]

No shit Sparky, he should have stayed off the property and not attempted to steal that. You win a cupie doll for figuring that out.

I'm not the one having a problem with the OWNER of the property trying to protect it from a thief.

Neither am I. It seems you're another one of those idiots who want's to read into as opposed to read.......

I don't have a problem if the owner shoots the piece of shit trying to steal from him.

I don't have a problem with it either but in most states and localities the owner would end up facing murder charges unless he was defending himself.
Now try real hard to think, I know it's difficult for you but I'm not advocating for the criminal, simply stating what is a factual possibility in some states and localities.
Not advocating means I'm not taking that side just in case you didn't know what that means.......

You wanted to jail him for electrocuting the Democrat but now you think he should be able to shoot him? You're just all over the place.

I wanted to jail him??!!!! Dayamn do you need to retake basic English composition....... If you ever took it in the first place.......

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

No shit Sparky, he should have stayed off the property and not attempted to steal that. You win a cupie doll for figuring that out.

I'm not the one having a problem with the OWNER of the property trying to protect it from a thief.

Neither am I. It seems you're another one of those idiots who want's to read into as opposed to read.......

I don't have a problem if the owner shoots the piece of shit trying to steal from him.

Rock salt loads. Before the age of lawsuits, it was a great way to deal with pests without killing them.

Wow, looks like you beginning to figure it out. I'm impressed, truly I am, didn't think you had it in you........

Lawsuits claiming damage predicated on the plaintiff's criminal behavior are often thrown out.

 

[Ringel05]

No shit Sparky, he should have stayed off the property and not attempted to steal that. You win a cupie doll for figuring that out.

I'm not the one having a problem with the OWNER of the property trying to protect it from a thief.

Neither am I. It seems you're another one of those idiots who want's to read into as opposed to read.......

I don't have a problem if the owner shoots the piece of shit trying to steal from him.

I don't have a problem with it either but in most states and localities the owner would end up facing murder charges unless he was defending himself.
Now try real hard to think, I know it's difficult for you but I'm not advocating for the criminal, simply stating what is a factual possibility in some states and localities.
Not advocating means I'm not taking that side just in case you didn't know what that means.......

So people should be able to steal without worrying about consequences?

How did you pull that out of your ass?

 

[Ringel05]

I'm not the one having a problem with the OWNER of the property trying to protect it from a thief.

Neither am I. It seems you're another one of those idiots who want's to read into as opposed to read.......

I don't have a problem if the owner shoots the piece of shit trying to steal from him.

Rock salt loads. Before the age of lawsuits, it was a great way to deal with pests without killing them.

Wow, looks like you beginning to figure it out. I'm impressed, truly I am, didn't think you had it in you........

Lawsuits claiming damage predicated on the plaintiff's criminal behavior are often thrown out.

Depends on the locality. Like you finally figured out, it's the age of litigation.

 

[Ringel05]

No shit Sparky, he should have stayed off the property and not attempted to steal that. You win a cupie doll for figuring that out.

I'm not the one having a problem with the OWNER of the property trying to protect it from a thief.

Neither am I. It seems you're another one of those idiots who want's to read into as opposed to read.......

I don't have a problem if the owner shoots the piece of shit trying to steal from him.

Rock salt loads. Before the age of lawsuits, it was a great way to deal with pests without killing them.

Sad part is the age of lawsuits enables criminals to sue because they suffered a consequence during the commission of a crime.

Wow, you finally figured out what I was referring to, you win another cupie doll!!!

 

[Conservative65]

Neither am I. It seems you're another one of those idiots who want's to read into as opposed to read.......

I don't have a problem if the owner shoots the piece of shit trying to steal from him.

Rock salt loads. Before the age of lawsuits, it was a great way to deal with pests without killing them.

Wow, looks like you beginning to figure it out. I'm impressed, truly I am, didn't think you had it in you........

Lawsuits claiming damage predicated on the plaintiff's criminal behavior are often thrown out.

Depends on the locality. Like you finally figured out, it's the age of litigation.

I already knew that. It's easy to see when the laws, like the ones you mentioned, are designed to protect the criminal and punish the innocent.

 

[Conservative65]

I'm not the one having a problem with the OWNER of the property trying to protect it from a thief.

Neither am I. It seems you're another one of those idiots who want's to read into as opposed to read.......

I don't have a problem if the owner shoots the piece of shit trying to steal from him.

Rock salt loads. Before the age of lawsuits, it was a great way to deal with pests without killing them.

Sad part is the age of lawsuits enables criminals to sue because they suffered a consequence during the commission of a crime.

Wow, you finally figured out what I was referring to, you win another cupie doll!!!

Already knew it. Sad how you thought you actually did something.

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

Neither am I. It seems you're another one of those idiots who want's to read into as opposed to read.......

I don't have a problem if the owner shoots the piece of shit trying to steal from him.

Rock salt loads. Before the age of lawsuits, it was a great way to deal with pests without killing them.

Wow, looks like you beginning to figure it out. I'm impressed, truly I am, didn't think you had it in you........

Lawsuits claiming damage predicated on the plaintiff's criminal behavior are often thrown out.

Depends on the locality. Like you finally figured out, it's the age of litigation.

It's also the age of tort reform. Idiots like to tell each other that anyone can sue for any reason but it's just not true. I know someone who sued the City of Boise, a case utterly lacking in merit. He lost the suit and ended up owing the city $10,000 in legal fees. If this idiot sued, the homeowner insurance company would slap back with a devastating counter lawsuit and end up owning his house. That's how it actually works, people with money protect that money.

 

[Ringel05]

Neither am I. It seems you're another one of those idiots who want's to read into as opposed to read.......

I don't have a problem if the owner shoots the piece of shit trying to steal from him.

Rock salt loads. Before the age of lawsuits, it was a great way to deal with pests without killing them.

Sad part is the age of lawsuits enables criminals to sue because they suffered a consequence during the commission of a crime.

Wow, you finally figured out what I was referring to, you win another cupie doll!!!

Already knew it. Sad how you thought you actually did something.

Another strange statement pulled out of your ass. It's amazing how few people can use the brain God gave them..........

 

[Ringel05]

I don't have a problem if the owner shoots the piece of shit trying to steal from him.

Rock salt loads. Before the age of lawsuits, it was a great way to deal with pests without killing them.

Wow, looks like you beginning to figure it out. I'm impressed, truly I am, didn't think you had it in you........

Lawsuits claiming damage predicated on the plaintiff's criminal behavior are often thrown out.

Depends on the locality. Like you finally figured out, it's the age of litigation.

It's also the age of tort reform. Idiots like to tell each other that anyone can sue for any reason but it's just not true. I know someone who sued the City of Boise, a case utterly lacking in merit. He lost the suit and ended up owing the city $10,000 in legal fees. If this idiot sued, the homeowner insurance company would slap back with a devastating counter lawsuit and end up owning his house. That's how it actually works, people with money protect that money.

Duh, so what else is new?

 

[Conservative65]

I don't have a problem if the owner shoots the piece of shit trying to steal from him.

Rock salt loads. Before the age of lawsuits, it was a great way to deal with pests without killing them.

Sad part is the age of lawsuits enables criminals to sue because they suffered a consequence during the commission of a crime.

Wow, you finally figured out what I was referring to, you win another cupie doll!!!

Already knew it. Sad how you thought you actually did something.

Another strange statement pulled out of your ass. It's amazing how few people can use the brain God gave them..........

It's amazing how many people, including you, have shit where God put brains that they refuse to use.

 

[Ringel05]

Rock salt loads. Before the age of lawsuits, it was a great way to deal with pests without killing them.

Sad part is the age of lawsuits enables criminals to sue because they suffered a consequence during the commission of a crime.

Wow, you finally figured out what I was referring to, you win another cupie doll!!!

Already knew it. Sad how you thought you actually did something.

Another strange statement pulled out of your ass. It's amazing how few people can use the brain God gave them..........

It's amazing how many people, including you, have shit where God put brains that they refuse to use.

Yet you appear to be one of the ones who thought I had an agenda because I posted a simple legal fact.

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

Rock salt loads. Before the age of lawsuits, it was a great way to deal with pests without killing them.

Wow, looks like you beginning to figure it out. I'm impressed, truly I am, didn't think you had it in you........

Lawsuits claiming damage predicated on the plaintiff's criminal behavior are often thrown out.

Depends on the locality. Like you finally figured out, it's the age of litigation.

It's also the age of tort reform. Idiots like to tell each other that anyone can sue for any reason but it's just not true. I know someone who sued the City of Boise, a case utterly lacking in merit. He lost the suit and ended up owing the city $10,000 in legal fees. If this idiot sued, the homeowner insurance company would slap back with a devastating counter lawsuit and end up owning his house. That's how it actually works, people with money protect that money.

Duh, so what else is new?

OMG you're dumb.

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

Sad part is the age of lawsuits enables criminals to sue because they suffered a consequence during the commission of a crime.

Wow, you finally figured out what I was referring to, you win another cupie doll!!!

Already knew it. Sad how you thought you actually did something.

Another strange statement pulled out of your ass. It's amazing how few people can use the brain God gave them..........

It's amazing how many people, including you, have shit where God put brains that they refuse to use.

Yet you appear to be one of the ones who thought I had an agenda because I posted a simple legal fact.

You have yet to post one.