Scenario - Hot Dog

[Musketeer]

Mikejonestkd and Oldbillthunderchief

The manual given out by the Suffolk County Police with your permit also specifically states the instances where lethal force may be used. For NYS it is a pretty good guide to the legitimate use of deadly force.

http://www.co.suffolk.ny.us/Police/P...ook-020505.pdf

USE OF PHYSICAL FORCE IN DEFENSE
OF PREMISES AND IN DEFENSE OF A
PERSON IN THE COURSE OF A BURGLARY.
(Penal Law Section 35.20)
1. Any person may use physical force upon another person when he reasonably believes such to be
necessary to prevent or terminate what he reasonably believes to be the commission or attempted
commission by such other person of a crime involving damage to premises. He may use any degree of
physical force, other than deadly physical force, which he reasonably believes to be necessary for such
purpose, and he may use deadly physical force if he reasonably believes such to be necessary to
prevent or terminate the commission or attempted commission of arson.

Note that paragraph 1 does not require you to be in possesion of the property. At the same time an old friend who was a retired NYC Fire Police Inspector explained that the allowance for deadly force to prevent arson was specifically due to the danger to human life. You may have a hard time tying the dog tied up in the middle of nowhere being set on fire to a threat to human life. Arson is further explained elsewhere and may specifically relate to structures only, I am not certain.

[Musketeer]

Thank you David Armstrong for being a voice of reason.

Certainly toruting animals is one step on the ladder to beign a true sociopath. It is also high on that ladder. That does not automatically take a person though to Hannibal Lechter. It warrants committal and imprisonment but does not warrant an immediate execution.

[Glenn E. Meyer]

This isn't happening in NY, friends. Check the TX rules.

Wildland Arson
The offense of Wildland Arson is defined in the Texas Penal Code, Section 28.02 as follows:
Sec. 28.02. ARSON. (a) A person commits an offense if the person starts a fire, regardless
of whether the fire continues after ignition, or causes an explosion with intent to destroy or damage:
(1) any vegetation, fence, or structure on open-space land; etc.

OP - Thus, you see a man tying a cute doggie (image it yourself) to a tree. He is dousing the dog with gasoline and holding a lighter.

The tree goes with Flaming Fido here.

[David Armstrong]

BTW for the good witness situation - to play this game more - what if you saw some guy going to do it to YOUR dog in front of your house. Fido was outside and a nut rides up in a truck and douses him.

Try to stop act without getting too close or using deadlly force.
Grab water hose to try to cool off Rover.
If Rover goes fireball big-time, shoot Rover to put him out of pain.
Provide evidence against torchman in court.
Sue torchman for lots of money.

Again, it's a dog, people. There are plenty of spares waiting at the local animal shelter.

[David Armstrong]

The tree goes with Flaming Fido here.

I haven't done TX law in over 20 years, but I think you may be on somewhat shaky ground. The statute includes an "intent" provision. Torchman does not intend to start a range fire or burn a tree, he intends to fry Fido.
Let's change it up a little to get all this what I feel is irrelevant emotional baggage out of the way. Could you use deadly force to stop torchman if he was setting fire to a stack of lumber scraps? I don't see how what he is setting on fire matters that much.

BTW, for all the animal fans out there, anybody ever boiled a lobster or a mess of crawfish??

[Groundhog]

Toothless Broken Jaw Guy's response is as follows..."Ngeeh fumph feef ohhh ngit...theeeet..."

Biker... ROFLMAO

Glen, looks like you got a good thread going, though we are bordering on getting it closed by a few posters here.

If it was my dog, the situation would have to be somewhat different, i.e. occurring on my property or some such. I'd draw down on him if that was the case because I'd be defending MY property, including house and family due to the fire thing. With those added components, he just might get shot and I doubt an thing would be done about it. Takes a lot of the "questionableness" out of it.

[easyG]

Please find ONE STATE where lethal force is NOT ALLOWED to be used in the prevention of rape.

The jury would have to be instructed that ues of deadly force to prevent a rape is LEGAL.

Not necessarily....
The definition of rape aint necessarily what you might think of when you hear the word "rape".
Do you think it's legal to kill an 18 year old boy for having concensual sex with a 17 year old girl (statutory rape)?
How about a drunken frat boy pressuring a drunken sorority girl into sex (date rape)?

Heck, even the police don't come in guns ablazing when a forceful rape is occuring.
And if they did shoot a rapist, you can bet you bottom dollar that there would be an investigation to determine IF it was a justified shooting.

The law is an odd creature...things seldom work out like you would think.

Quote:
But hey, let's go a different route...
A guy rapes your wife but the courts don't have enough evidence to bring it to trial.
Would you become a vigilante and taken matters in your own hands?

No. I would hate it but NO. We live in a society of guided by the law. Aside from the basic premise of being a law abiding citizen I still have a wife to care for, I still have children to raise. One needs to put their inner "rambo" ego aside and behave as a responsible adult.

I can see from this answer that there is simply no way I will ever understand your mindset.

A responsible adult does what's right.
And it does not mean that someone's playing "Rambo" just because they decide to stand up and do what's right.

So everyone in your area is an NRA member and a solid voter with regards to 2A issues?

I'm pro-gun and pro 2A and I refuse to renew my membership in the NRA.
I joined them when I was younger and did not know any better.
They have sold out gun owners too many times in my opinion.
It might not be a popular opinion here on the forums, but it's true.
And no, most folks are not "in the middle" about the 2A, most folks are against the 2nd Amendment...just in varying degrees.

I have only asked people not to advocate illegal activity using a firearm as it hurts our cause with the majority of this nations undecided citizens.

Well, aren't you the good law abiding citizen.

And when they outlaw firearms, will you be a good law abiding citizen then as well?

[mikejonestkd]

Thanks for the clarification and the education on the laws gentlemen. I missed that it was in TX...dang alzheimers acting up again..

For the record I would not draw on the perp in this situation, a dog is replacable...

A phone call would be made quickly, very quickly!!!

What's the number for 911 again?

[oldironman]

Is it the same dog that has been crapping in my front yard?

[bennnn]

Good time for THIS:

I'm going to try my hand at a scenario. It has some hidden aspects.

One evening you are driving in the country. It is the dry time in TX. You have read of a sicko who is seating fire to dogs.

Thus, you see a man tying a cute doggie (image it yourself) to a tree. He is dousing the dog with gasoline and holding a lighter.

You stop and yell at him to stop. He replies to go mate with yourself and moves towards the dog with a lighter.

You have the TFL gear - gun, OC, phone, knife, extra mag, BUG, AR or shotgun in the vehicle.

What do you do and what is your legal justification? What is your moral justification?

Since we're talking

scenario

's here.,,,,,,

I would,,,, (IF ,, I had all the TFL gear..... See above...)


screech to a halt and kick the car door open while the emergency break was still doing it's thing,, come out in a roll towards the "perp" (suspected)
come out of the roll in a flying kick aimed at his hand,, (that would put the match out..) twist his arse into a serious submission hold,,, (a block is a lock is a blow is a throw,,, I blocked the burning match...),,, hold the punk down (he's skinny and weak right?),, while I call the law, comfort the poor scared dog, and tell my wife I'm going to be late...........


Wish I had some gum to chew....

Really though,,, I'd probably just hit the gas,, swerve off,, and try to hit the fu****.....

I could explain that scenario....

[Bigfatts]

I wouldn't shoot him, but if I had OC he would get a good long douse of it in the face. There is simply no justification to be cruel to an animal and I for one will not stand for it, my animal, your animal, wild animal, whatever. Now I do hunt, but I do my best to ensure a quick death for the animal. I have seen burned dogs and it damn near ripped my heart out. If he wanted to call the cops because I OC'd him I would let him use my cell. I would tell the cops why I OC'd him and I can guarantee you the cops in my area would take my side on it, if the guy really wanted to get the cops involved in the first place.

[Southern_guy]

Yeah, I'm a sucker for animals as well. I'd have recurring nightmares for the rest of my life if I just sat there and did nothing.

[Musketeer]

A responsible adult does what's right.
And it does not mean that someone's playing "Rambo" just because they decide to stand up and do what's right.

I see, you are right, the world is wrong and you are above the law. That law you expect others to obey doesn't really apply to you because you know better. At least it is clear now.

Not necessarily....
The definition of rape aint necessarily what you might think of when you hear the word "rape".
Do you think it's legal to kill an 18 year old boy for having concensual sex with a 17 year old girl (statutory rape)?
How about a drunken frat boy pressuring a drunken sorority girl into sex (date rape)?

Heck, even the police don't come in guns ablazing when a forceful rape is occuring.
And if they did shoot a rapist, you can bet you bottom dollar that there would be an investigation to determine IF it was a justified shooting.

Good God, do you need every scenario laid out down to the underwear of the participants. BY LAW A FORCIBLE RAPE MAY BE RESISTED WITH LETHAL FORCE. That applies to all 50 states, if it doesn't then prove it. It doesn't mean you have to use lethal force when lesser force will suffice but if needed it is justified and it can be presented as a defense in court.

By the way, there is an investigation after EVERY SHOOTING to determine if it was justified.

I'm pro-gun and pro 2A and I refuse to renew my membership in the NRA.
I joined them when I was younger and did not know any better.
They have sold out gun owners too many times in my opinion.
It might not be a popular opinion here on the forums, but it's true.
And no, most folks are not "in the middle" about the 2A, most folks are against the 2nd Amendment...just in varying degrees.

I see, SAF fanatic. They are well intentioned but have absolutely no idea how to win a long term battle in the real world. That though is the subject for another thread. You wonder why the majority is anti 2A (or so you think), it is because the chest thumbing machine gun militia of the SAF scare the hell out of them almost as much as the criminals. They see the camo clad loonies vowing to fight the gov't in the street and say, "Why would I ever want to be on the same side of an issue as them?" It doesn't matter if your issue is RIGHT because when it comes to politics Perception is Reality.

[stephen426]

For those argueing that being meat eaters and wearing leather is the same as torching a LIVE animal, get real. Last I check, eating meat and wearing leather are not illegal. Animal cruelty is illegal.

One other thing here is that many are assuming that intervening means shooting the guy. As mentioned by several others, there are other options such as pepper spray or beating his head in. Heck, if I had full TFL gear, maybe it might include a taser. What I WON'T do is just simply ignore it and let this sicko continue torching live animals.

As for cooking live lobsters and crawfish, make sure the water is really boiling. I'm sure it does hurt them, but it is over very quickly due to their small size. A dog on fire will probably suffer for a long time before it dies. Cooking lobsters and crawfish is for food. Torching dogs is just to be a sick cruel ^%*&#.

[Groundhog]

What is TFL gear?

[Glenn E. Meyer]

TFL - gear.

Greg - this is the great debate about what the armed citizen should carry.

Of course, many go with a poopy Keltec in their shorts.

But the rig is:

1. A main semi auto 9mm or >.
2. At least one extra mag.
3. A knife - preferrably two - re: knife fighting classes
4. A BUG - reloads for the Bug - nice but not required
5. Cell Phone
6. Some less than lethal - usually OC - with the new civilian Tasers - perhaps
7. Impact weapon (if legal) - not in TX but flashlights can suffice as dual purpose
8. Flashlight, like a Surefire - backup inova or photonlight

It's really not hard to carry this in casual dress

If in your car:

A rifle of some sort
Shotgun - sure
Med kit

If you are nuts

30 Food supply and gadgets to live off the land
Level VIII Vest for RPGs
Vampire slayer kit
Kelvar helmet
Supply of virgins to restart civilization.
Viagra

[Doug.38PR]

I don't think anyone has brought up the fact that Mr. Meyer's scenario is taking place during the daytime (that is right isn't it Mr. Meyer? Since we can so clearly see what is going on) which, in regard to protecting property, would technically make it illegal.

EDIT: Oh it say's "evening" in the original post. Which could make it nighttime...on the other hand it is the summer time and daylight lasts well into the evening and as said we can clearly see what is going on from our car.

[nbk2000]

If it was a human being tied to a tree and about to be burned alive, or in the basement of an apartment building, than the law would support any level of violence to prevent it, as it should, because human life is obviously in danger or at grave risk.

But when crypto-sociopaths are looking to murder a human being using their phallic prosthetic, citing 'arson' or 'animal cruelty' as justification, than you know what's wrong with a lot of gun owners.

[BTW I'm pro-gun/anti-idiot]

I've burned foxes and badgers and squirrels and several other species of animal alive, by pouring gas down into their warrens or dens and lighting them up. I've yet to kill a human being. But I guess it's just a matter of time, according to the many experts here.

Yes, burn-boy is a sick bastard, but sick=dead is a very slippery slope that a lot of posters here seem to relish. Next comes 'He's kinda swarthy looking...KILL DA TERR 'ER 'IST!'.

TFL Gear is an assortment of magic talismans to ward off evil, boost testosterone levels, and reduce IQ points.

[Glenn E. Meyer]

I always drive with my night vision googles on!

I was going for the dark as in TX, the law has some interesting after dark provisions which may or may not be relevant.

As far as visibility, Doug - it is part of the scenario that you can see what's up. I've bounced around some of these roads after sunset as a slow speed due to holes and critters.

BTW, I've asked friends at work - the opinions from a confirmed dog lover was to open fire immediately. Other folks go for the H2H and if the dude resists you - open fire.

How about the taser story where it set a guy on fire as he was covered with gasoline? That would be ironic.

Thanks for all the replies, BTW - it's been really interesting. The emotional/affective immediate response vs. the rational is fascinationg contrast.

I feel the tug of both myself. Off to lunch.

BTW - nbk - you are being TOO Freudian or is it projection on your part? Crypto-sociopaths and phallus - geez. While I might suggest restraint, I do think it is a legit moral position to intervene against such a person and not a sign of what's wrong with gun owners. I find little wrong with most law abiding gun owners and not too much indication of sociopathy among them.

[Eghad]

Arson is 24/7 in Texas

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.

If he sets the property on fire a. you would be exposed to danger trying to put it out and once its burned there is no way to recover it.

[oldbillthundercheif]

Ha!

As Texas still uses the common-law "night season" designations for some things, you may run across my favorite crime:

Hamsoaking- The breaking and entering of the dwelling house of another with intent to commit a felony within during the day season.

I'm a geek for obscure laws, if y'all have not figured that out by now.

[WIN71]

This has been. Solutions have gone the gambit from shooting the guy, shooting the dog, doing nothing, and variations of everything in between. One thing for sure. If you decide to shoot anything based on your heart or your emotions you should remember one thing. After the shooting everyone who has any authority will be making decisions on your future based solely on the law and their brain. However sympathetic they may be the end result will not be based on emotions or feelings of the heart. Whether it can be used successfully as a defense is unpredictable.

[Samurai]

Dang! I forgot to load the Viagra into my restart-civilization kit! I knew I was forgetting something... Good thing I've got this vampire-slaying kit, though! Too many close calls!

[David Armstrong]

Cooking lobsters and crawfish is for food. Torching dogs is just to be a sick cruel ^%*&#.

Again, it depends on one's perspective . The PETA folks will make a really good argument that tossing a live lobster or crawfish into boiling water is also a sick cruel ^%*&#. They will make the argument that wearing leather or fur is a sick cruel ^%*&#. I would make the argument that skinning a cat alive and then tossing it into boiling water for food is pretty bad, but that is done in some countries. Live monkeys have their skulls split open so one can eat the brains at festivals in some areas. So what constitutes a sick cruel ^%*&# really is a very flexible and shifting concept.

[WIN71]

So what constitutes a sick cruel ^%*&# really is a very flexible and shifting concept.

No kidding. That lobster would probably jump into the boiling water rather than follow the calves through the castration shoots......