Retired navy guy spray painted my evo (caught during the act) pics & vids
Dec 7, 2011, 01:43 PM
#91
I'm not defending his actions, what he did was wrong, the degree 1Up took it to was also wrong.
Dec 7, 2011, 01:47 PM
#93
This thread can go back and forth all day. I continued reading everyone posts. Both sides of it can be right and wrong. We dont really know how we would have acted when the time comes. Its different if someone is walking out of a store and you see your evo getting painted like 1up. Adrenaline starts pumping and what not.
It doesnt matter if its a 14K evo or a 2k Civic. No one should paint anyones car or mess with it for that matter. Theres Evos being stolen around the Chicago area all the time for the last couple years. People have different ways of handling things. Me i wouldnt have gone to that extent but if i got spit on and was threatened i would have reacted totally different. Im sure none of us are lawyers so will let that handle if it gets to that point. Hope it works out for ya and the Evo gets fixed!
It doesnt matter if its a 14K evo or a 2k Civic. No one should paint anyones car or mess with it for that matter. Theres Evos being stolen around the Chicago area all the time for the last couple years. People have different ways of handling things. Me i wouldnt have gone to that extent but if i got spit on and was threatened i would have reacted totally different. Im sure none of us are lawyers so will let that handle if it gets to that point. Hope it works out for ya and the Evo gets fixed!
Dec 7, 2011, 01:47 PM
#94
Evolving Member
iTrader: (8)
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Virgie, KY 41572
Posts: 136
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Lol, gotta love "Internet advices".
1UpMoto, I advise you to talk to friends or family that familiar with the law where you live and see how it goes from there. No point in arguing on the Internet.
1UpMoto, I advise you to talk to friends or family that familiar with the law where you live and see how it goes from there. No point in arguing on the Internet.
Dec 7, 2011, 01:59 PM
#98
Where do you live again? Good idea spreading stupid false information. I live in Texas and no you are not allowed to shoot someone under those cirumstances. The case being that it was would 1. Have to been nighttime with no way to see the assailant and 2. Have felt force was necessary and you STILL have to restrain yourself in situations when the use of force could cause serious bodily injury. In TX you would have been in trouble because you caused serious bodily injury. The video shows he clearly was not in danger.
None of what happened in your video or explanation of the events resulted in the necessary use of force to cause serious bodily injury.
TEXAS
§ 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.
§ 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.
None of what happened in your video or explanation of the events resulted in the necessary use of force to cause serious bodily injury.
TEXAS
§ 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.
§ 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.
Last edited by Broham; Dec 7, 2011 at 02:03 PM.
Dec 7, 2011, 02:05 PM
#99
Evolving Member
iTrader: (10)
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: SF Bay Area
Posts: 446
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I don't condone to violence as I probably would not know what I would do if I was in the OP's shoes at the time catching the vandalism. I've had my share of my properties being vandalized/****ed with over the years and none of them had justices served to the culprits but whatever.
It's human nature to react.
Bravo!
It's human nature to react.
Bravo!
Dec 7, 2011, 02:17 PM
#101
Newbie
iTrader: (2)
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: South El monte
Posts: 45
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
well. this is how i would have handled the situation, called the cops. if he tried to fle then beat his *** even then im sure i would have known the limit.
its an evo, you should have full cover on it. 500 deductable that you might not even have had to pay can turn into a law suit becuase you clearly whooped his ***.
gl
its an evo, you should have full cover on it. 500 deductable that you might not even have had to pay can turn into a law suit becuase you clearly whooped his ***.
gl
Dec 7, 2011, 02:25 PM
#103
uhhh.... You may not want to be posting videos of the victim of an assault, especially when you admit on that video that you were the one that assaulted him. Also, telling him things like he's lucky he's not in a ditch and that he want to kill him are also a bad idea. Especially on video.
Just trying to help you avoid a civil lawsuit or potential criminal charges.
EDIT: Read a few of the posts... Looks like you may be safe, but I'm not a lawyer.
Just trying to help you avoid a civil lawsuit or potential criminal charges.
EDIT: Read a few of the posts... Looks like you may be safe, but I'm not a lawyer.
Last edited by Vivid Racing; Dec 7, 2011 at 02:28 PM.
Dec 7, 2011, 02:29 PM
#104
Newbie
iTrader: (3)
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Maine
Posts: 28
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Wow. As I am going to school for law, There are a few things in this video that caught my attention. The first being that you detained the guy. Judging by his size and Ex-Military you had every right to "assault" him to defend your own personal moveable property. You don't know his previous training or experience in the military nor do you know if he is carrying any type of weapon on him. You had every right to disable him, especially since this is a HATE crime. EVERY type of Law Enforcement knows not to underestimate someone. You did JUST that.
As for the verbal threats, they are as that...VERBAL THREATS. Meaning they warrant nothing but a 'slap on the wrist'. And no where in the video did you say you were going to KILL him, you said he's "Lucky you're not going to...." The same goes with text message threats, voicemail threats and/or facebook threats. At worst case, your looking at a restraining order from him and as far as the Maine State law goes, you need other incidences of harassment to even be allowed the form to apply for it.
So what these people that oppose what you did are saying is that what you did is wrong, but I'm sure think this is OK?
I've had my car vandalized and never caught the guy until recently. Did I vindicate myself? Are you kidding me, I wouldn't EVER pass that opportunity up. You gave this guy what he didn't expect to get, and that was exactly what he deserved.
Don't let these "older, mature" clowns tell you they would've done any different. And if they say they would've then they have a vag. I've been in your shoes man, good for you.
As for the verbal threats, they are as that...VERBAL THREATS. Meaning they warrant nothing but a 'slap on the wrist'. And no where in the video did you say you were going to KILL him, you said he's "Lucky you're not going to...." The same goes with text message threats, voicemail threats and/or facebook threats. At worst case, your looking at a restraining order from him and as far as the Maine State law goes, you need other incidences of harassment to even be allowed the form to apply for it.
So what these people that oppose what you did are saying is that what you did is wrong, but I'm sure think this is OK?
I've had my car vandalized and never caught the guy until recently. Did I vindicate myself? Are you kidding me, I wouldn't EVER pass that opportunity up. You gave this guy what he didn't expect to get, and that was exactly what he deserved.
Don't let these "older, mature" clowns tell you they would've done any different. And if they say they would've then they have a vag. I've been in your shoes man, good for you.
Last edited by umadevo; Dec 7, 2011 at 02:39 PM.
