• If you enjoy the forum please consider supporting it by signing up for a NES Membership  The benefits pay for the membership many times over.

Things People Tell You ...

ReluctantDecoy said:
You'll want to be careful who you are listening to for casual advice. Power to arrest != expert of MGL. A badge might indicate familiarity with laws due to working proximity to them, but I'd just say that correct interpretation and intimate understanding of all MGL is not a strict prerequisite for the job. That's up to the attorneys and DA. Hence why you'll sometimes hear about arrests, but later dropped charges or no charges at all.
Click to expand...

Of course, It is why I am enduring this crowd. Some where there is a relevant citation ... or not.
Either way. part of my "Due Diligence".

(Edit) "Reluctant", I would add, your point is exactly on. The difference between"Can do / Should do". How do you want to wake up Monday morning.
One will endure the beliefs of the responding officers and the Dept.
You may very likely find yourself defending in court, a decision you made.

Don't misunderstand me, I have respect for the job our LE does. Not easy. I don't envy them.

For my LTC classes, I get all kinds of questions. This is me leaving "No Stone Unturned" looking for perspective.

FWIW, I am catching up on reading, asking an attorney, other firearm instructors etc.
 
Last edited:
ADC said:
Of course, It is why I am enduring this crowd. Some where there is a relevant citation ... or not.
Either way. part of my "Due Diligence".

(Edit) "Reluctant", I would add, your point is exactly on. The difference between"Can do / Should do". How do you want to wake up Monday morning.
One will endure the beliefs of the responding officers and the Dept.
You may very likely find yourself defending in court, a decision you made.

Don't misunderstand me, I have respect for the job our LE does. Not easy. I don't envy them.

For my LTC classes, I get all kinds of questions. This is me leaving "No Stone Unturned" looking for perspective.

FWIW, I am catching up on reading, asking an attorney, other firearm instructors etc.
Click to expand...
Any citation on a law being amended or repealed with be in the MGL. If there is no citation in the MGL, then the law stands as is.

Now, your cop friend may have "heard" that they were planning on changing parts of it, or repealing it completely, and had assumed it was a done deal (IF that was ever something considered by the Legislature, I wouldn't put it past them). And this assumption could be why he said it was changed or repealed. Either way, he is still wrong.

I have many LEO friends, and you'd be surprised how little they actually know about our firearms laws.
 
Mason609 said:
Any citation on a law being amended or repealed with be in the MGL. If there is no citation in the MGL, then the law stands as is.

Now, your cop friend may have "heard" that they were planning on changing parts of it, or repealing it completely, and had assumed it was a done deal (IF that was ever something considered by the Legislature, I wouldn't put it past them). And this assumption could be why he said it was changed or repealed. Either way, he is still wrong.

I have many LEO friends, and you'd be surprised how little they actually know about our firearms laws.
Click to expand...

Even if that is the case, said cop friend needs to understand in his mind that shitbags like Linsky, Creem, et al, put up "grandstanding" bills to try to change gun laws and SD laws and that kind of thing /EVERY/ legislative session, without fail, like a bird sitting on a wire above your car will shit on your car kind of reliability.

It's not really a "scoop" if a cop is talking about a bill filed for the 485th time that is not going to pass.
 
I appreciate all the comments, including the jabs.
Thank You.
I do have to walk the discussion around the block a couple times just in case I have missed something.

BTW, I agree with those who have pointed out, if it is, or is not in MGL, that is my answer.
Again, those who have pointed out, this particular gentleman likely is incorrect.
Important to note, any related incident in this town I am referring to will likely result in getting jammed up until someone else sorts it out.
That costs money and takes it's toll on life in general.
 
PaulR said:
I was somewhat aware we used to have one, but that was many years ago.
I was always taught if you shoot someone, make sure they are in your house and you have exhausted every measure of escape.
Click to expand...
Ayoob taught a class in legal self defense at HSC and my take away was: if the attacker was on top of you, no way to retreat... I could imagine some DA putting out ridiculous arguments like "you could have jumped out that second story window to get away" f*** that...
 
Just for comparison's sake, in Texas if someone is on your property after dark you can shoot on sight.
 
kalash said:
Just for comparison's sake, in Texas if someone is on your property after dark you can shoot on sight.
Click to expand...
Not quite:
Texas law states that property owners are able to use force to terminate trespassing or theft if they deem it is necessary; however, force and deadly force are two different actions. Shooting the trespasser is considered deadly force since the bullet can easily end the person’s life. If the person is not an immediate threat to you or your family, deadly force is not permissible.
Click to expand...
See Can I Be Charged for Shooting Someone Who Is On My Property Illegally? | Atascosa County Criminal Defense Attorney
 
A few years ago a local scumbag broke into my neighbor's tool trailer. Right after he broke in the poor fellow evidently tripped and and landed on the paved driveway. While he was laying there it seems like a 4 foot concrete level fell out of the trailer and landed on him about 16 times. I felt bad for him because that thing leaves a hell of a welt. Then somehow the clumsy bastard evidently slid all the way down the 150' driveway on his back. He was last seen stumbling down the road aways before he staggered off into the woods. Poor guy. I've often wondered if he made it out of the woods or if that pack of coyotes that followed his blood trail got to him. Hard to say,, some guys just aren't lucky.. Thoughts and prayers.
 
cathouse01 said:
Not quite:

See Can I Be Charged for Shooting Someone Who Is On My Property Illegally? | Atascosa County Criminal Defense Attorney
Click to expand...

Texas penal code:
SUBCHAPTER D. PROTECTION OF PROPERTY



Sec. 9.41. PROTECTION OF ONE'S OWN PROPERTY. (a) A person in lawful possession of land or tangible, movable property is justified in using force against another when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to prevent or terminate the other's trespass on the land or unlawful interference with the property.

(b) A person unlawfully dispossessed of land or tangible, movable property by another is justified in using force against the other when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to reenter the land or recover the property if the actor uses the force immediately or in fresh pursuit after the dispossession and:

(1) the actor reasonably believes the other had no claim of right when he dispossessed the actor; or

(2) the other accomplished the dispossession by using force, threat, or fraud against the actor.


Acts 1973, 63rd Leg., p. 883, ch. 399, Sec. 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1974. Amended by Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 900, Sec. 1.01, eff. Sept. 1, 1994.




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.


Acts 1973, 63rd Leg., p. 883, ch. 399, Sec. 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1974. Amended by Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 900, Sec. 1.01, eff. Sept. 1, 1994.
Click to expand...
My reading of this is that trespass during the nighttime is a justification for deadly force.
 
Wooderson said:
As codification in the MGL isn't cut and dried enough for you, remind me not to take your class.
Click to expand...

A lot of good people have left NE Shooters. All have said this place has fallen into shit.
Woodsman, folks like you are the reason.
Looking at some of your posts, it fits.

I have what I need.
You can have the last word.
 
kalash said:
Texas penal code:

My reading of this is that trespass during the nighttime is a justification for deadly force.
Click to expand...
I don’t think a person just being on your property would meet any of the conditions for use of deadly force. The trespasser would need to be in the process of committing a felony or have just been seen to commit a felony. If they were just there, you could only use force if they refused to get off your property and you could only use deadly force if they responded in some life threatening manner. I think the law is clear that you can’t shoot someone for the simple act of trespass.
 
So if a lone bad guy breaks into a house the the occupants of home kill the bad guy, how would any one ouside of the home know that the bad guy was dead? 🤔
 
Texas Law Shield has a good video on when you can and can’t shoot a trespasser.



An interesting point in using deadly force to recover your property after a theft is step 3:

The jury must find that when you used deadly force to protect property, you reasonably believed it could not have been protected or recovered by other means; or using something less than deadly force would expose you to a substantial risk of death or serious bodily injury.
Click to expand...

The question would be, if you had insurance, would that count as being able to recover your property by other means? I wouldn’t want to trust a jury with that decision.
 
I was talking to a guy a couple weeks back about guns. He said you have to retreat in your own house. I told him that was wrong and got the old “it’s not wrong. The guy that taught my safety course is a retired trooper and he said you have to retreat.”

ok dude, do whatever you want.
 
Mason609 said:
Any citation on a law being amended or repealed with be in the MGL. If there is no citation in the MGL, then the law stands as is.

Now, your cop friend may have "heard" that they were planning on changing parts of it, or repealing it completely, and had assumed it was a done deal (IF that was ever something considered by the Legislature, I wouldn't put it past them). And this assumption could be why he said it was changed or repealed. Either way, he is still wrong.

I have many LEO friends, and you'd be surprised how little they actually know about our firearms laws.
Click to expand...
Bottom line, expect to be arrested in a valid self defense scenario where you have acted appropriately and within the law.

Have your selected criminal defense lawyer on your phone’s VIP contacts list and keep your mouth shut. If pressed for a statement indicate you will need to take some time to gather your thoughts and will provide a full statement in the near future after consulting with your attorney.
 
Last edited:
cathouse01 said:
Texas Law Shield has a good video on when you can and can’t shoot a trespasser.



An interesting point in using deadly force to recover your property after a theft is step 3:



The question would be, if you had insurance, would that count as being able to recover your property by other means? I wouldn’t want to trust a jury with that decision.
Click to expand...

I don’t know about Texas but in MA the answer is unequivocally no. You cannot shoot a fleeing thief. He is fleeing and under normal circumstances poses no threat of grievous bodily harm to you and using lethal force against him makes you the aggressor. You cannot deadly force to protect or retrieve stolen property.
 

Similar threads

Things you didn't know you needed
Replies
14
Views
442
greencobra
greencobra
Can you guys tell me what this is?
Replies
7
Views
473
LittleCalm
L
Pennsylvania Court Upholds Right of Young People to Carry Guns in Public
Replies
6
Views
206
Coyote33
Coyote33
can someone tell me in layman's english how exactly does israel's "iron dome" work?
2 3
Replies
60
Views
969
drgrant
drgrant
you got a pet firearm?
Replies
12
Views
528
pinefd
pinefd
Back
Top Bottom