Who gives these people GUNS!? slight rant... not too long I promise!

[ducks4you]

You know, these guys give the law-abiding, respectful hunters--WHO YOU NEVER SEE BECAUSE THEY DON'T TRESSPASS--a bad name. Where WE live the hotshots from Chicago have been buying their own hunting land. THAT's food for thought!

 

[redstars]

absolutely would have shot back!

 

[GrayDragon]

Quote:
My grandfather lives in Michigan. He knocked an armed robber unconscious (don't mess with a former navy boxing champ, they just get meaner as they get older) on his property, and when it was all said and done he (my grandfather) lost the lawsuit and almost did time for assault. For your own protection, you should double check what you believe castle doctrine in Michigan states.

Or you could just use a silencer and a shovel. That works too.

GD, the bill passed in 2006.. when was your grandfather's incident? The problem I see is that you have to shoot and make sure they are dead. You shoot to maim and your just asking for trouble. I know it's only a matter of an inch of sight difference to the shooter but to the one being shot its the choice of loosing an arm or loosing their life.

His incident was in 2007.

The problem is Castle Doctrine does not give you the right to shoot someone just for being on your property, even if they do happen to have a firearm on their person.

“(1) Except as provided in subsection (2), it is a rebuttable presumption in a civil or criminal case that an individual who uses deadly force or force other than deadly force under section 2 of the self-defense act has an honest and reasonable belief that imminent death of, sexual assault of, or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another individual will occur if both of the following apply:

(a) The individual against whom deadly force or force other than deadly force is used is in the process of breaking and entering a dwelling or business premises or committing home invasion or has broken and entered a dwelling or business premises or committed home invasion and is still present in the dwelling or business premises, or is unlawfully attempting to remove another individual from a dwelling, business premises, or occupied vehicle against his or her will.

(b) The individual using deadly force or force other than deadly force honestly and reasonably believes that the individual is engaging in conduct described in subdivision (a).”

The force used must be proportional to the threat posed. In my grandfather's case, the crook claimed he was retreating from my grandfather, and the idiot judge believed him (in spite of the broken window, the firearm, the vet bill for the dog the crook injured, my grandmother's testimony, etc...)


Even under the current Castle Doctrine, if the criminal in question cannot be interpreted as posing a deadly threat (say, they are only breaking into a shed on your property, or just into your car, not into your home itself) you cannot use deadly force. Or, as my grandfather experienced, the moment the situation can be considered to have 'switched', aka, the homeowner is the one on the offensive, Castle Doctrine can cease to apply. It's like when a couple punks accosted a friend of mine's wife. He was in the right to beat the crap out of them right up until the point that they started running (messing with the pregnant wife of an ex-army ranger really isn't something that is going to end well), but when he chased them down to beat on them some more it became assault rather than defense.


Castle Doctrine or no Castle Doctrine, if you shoot a person that is retreating, surrendering, or failing to pose a real threat, it's still attempted murder/murder. A negligent firearms user who kills someone that clearly does not pose a threat to the life of anyone on the property will still be considered a murderer.



That said, the guys on your property were armed, trespassing, and discharging their firearms in the dark in the general area of your home. Pretty sure the law would side with you. But, if they were just in a stand with a gun laying across their lap, in spite of the fact they were armed and trespassing, you'd still be in the wrong if you shot them.





I've argued against people claiming Castle Doctrine is a 'license to kill' and 'proof people shouldn't own guns cause they can shoot the pizza delivery guy' way too often. Can you tell?

 

[cockadoodle]

Turn them in, just be sneaky about getting their plate and vehicle description next time if you are concerned about them coming after you. Out here the division of wildlife investigates every claim and if they get busted, they can easily lose the right to hunt or fish in not just Colorado, but in every state we have reciprocity with, which is I believe 14 other states last time I checked. Not sure what it's like out there. That kind of system should be on a national level I think.. chances are pretty good they are violating a few other state / federal laws that you didn't even see. They might not even have tags...might be D.U.I, who knows. Obviously they aren't the kind of hunter I like to go to the woods with.

I haven't hunted bigger game yet (deer, elk, etc), but am going to next year. I did some state by state research to try and determine how hunter safety has reduced the number of hunter related shooting accidents since it was implemented, and it's impressive. I've seen reductions from 67% to +80% in those types of accidents since the 60's. Hunting is safer now than it's ever been, there will always be idiots, stupidity transcends everything. more in some areas than others.

I don't know about everyone else's states, but here, if we made it harder for hunters to get permits, or regulated it even more than it already is, we would lose out on millions (if not billions) of tourisim dollars that is helping to keep our state afloat lately. That probably helps little when you have someone shooting rounds on in and around your property, I would be tempted to do worse if I was on my land and that situation happened to me than just turning them in, but that is the smartest thing to do, without a second thought.

 

[wombat]

Post your land. Put a sign up by your mailbox that reads "hunting by prior permission only" if you want to control access.

If people trespass, report them. If they are shooting from the road or vehicle, report them. It's illegal in most states. Better that they were shooting from the road instead of trespasing. That way, they might not know who turned them in, could have been anyone seeing them down the road.

I have no sympathy for slob hunters. They ruin it for everyone else.

My father didn't hunt. I started hunting at the age of 14, either alone, or with another kid my own age. I knew at that age to ask land owners for permission, and we always asked. We knew it was illegal and certainly not sporting to shoot game from a road or from a vehicle. There's no reason a bunch of 21 year olds should not know better. Turn their butts in to the game warden.

 

[wombat]

Quote:
Those hotshots are spending their own money, it's a free country. At least they're hunting their own land, and keeping land for hunting is better conservation than paving it over. At least they're buying south of the border!

I grew up in Wisconsin. All you southerners were the same to us anyway, whether hotshots from Chicago or not.

 

[ijon1]

Why do you have to post your land? Does the trespasser pay the taxes on your land. There is in Michigan the Horton trespass law.

 

[GrayDragon]

Quote:
You post your land pretty much so people know where your land begins.

 

[mamawolf544]

I'm in Texas and after years of buying signs, putting them up for the hunter's to tear down, I do the purple spray paint. Every t-post, tree and corner post is marked. I wouldn't have a problem if they would just be polite enough to knock on the door.

 

[sparkles2307]

OK #1. BIL had his 7yo with him...they were also shooting at his stand.
#2. I found out on Tuesday that these same guys were on the other side of our "town" doing the same thing on someone else's land.
#3. our land starts at the road on 3 sides. On the 4th side its bordered by our neighbor's PRIVATE and POSTED ag fields. Our property line is a creek, his side is soybeans and our side is corn, theres no confusion about it NOT being private property.


I agree that if one is a very accurate shot the neutering could be done in one shot. Stupid People Shouldnt Breed.