Democrat Neighbor Electrocuted THEN Charged with Trespassing

[eflatminor]

Interesting, if real (not staged) then he got what he deserved however if real the homeowner would be facing charges and a civil law suit also for intentionally booby trapping the sign..........

Booby Traps Law & Legal Definition

Getting a minor shock isnt an "injury". He cant be sued for that.

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?

The law clearly states that he is liable IF the person is injured. He has no injury, therefore he isn't liable.

Ya should have read further..........

It is illegal to set a booby trap on one's own property to prevent intruders.

No ifs, ands or buts included in that statement. Oops........

Also, what if one of the younger neighborhood kids had come on the property (just being a kid) and received the shock, the owner would most likely be in jail and the parents suing the crap out of him..... And in this era of litigation would most likely win.

They wouldn't win if I was on that jury.

 

[Ringel05]

I posted I link to the law at the very first. Problem?

The problem isnt with the law but with your ridiculous spin to the law, dude.

This is an obvious point but you are going to do the Tar Baby Dance and keep up with all these idiotic responses while ignoring the obvious.

Standard libtard deflection bullshit.

I knew you'd fall back on that, you can't help yourself, it's hardwired stupidity.

 

[Ringel05]

There are more than a few contradictory laws and exceptions in this land, ...

Which has nothing to do with the mechanics of the current twisted spin you are giving this law against booby trapping where no injuries occur.

You are being absurd to cover your tracks about something you are obviously very incorrect about.

But you will keep going like some evil cousin of the Energizer Bunny, lol.

If you say so sparky......

 

[Ringel05]

Getting a minor shock isnt an "injury". He cant be sued for that.

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?

The law clearly states that he is liable IF the person is injured. He has no injury, therefore he isn't liable.

Ya should have read further..........

It is illegal to set a booby trap on one's own property to prevent intruders.

No ifs, ands or buts included in that statement. Oops........

Also, what if one of the younger neighborhood kids had come on the property (just being a kid) and received the shock, the owner would most likely be in jail and the parents suing the crap out of him..... And in this era of litigation would most likely win.

They wouldn't win if I was on that jury.

I could care less

 

[JimBowie1958]

I posted I link to the law at the very first. Problem?

The problem isnt with the law but with your ridiculous spin to the law, dude.

This is an obvious point but you are going to do the Tar Baby Dance and keep up with all these idiotic responses while ignoring the obvious.

Standard libtard deflection bullshit.

I knew you'd fall back on that, you can't help yourself, it's hardwired stupidity.

And you still duck the obvious point; laws against booby traps are applied to cases where someone is injured and none other.

But keep deflecting, dude, it is hilarious.

 

[JimBowie1958]

They wouldn't win if I was on that jury.

I could care less

No, you mean you could NOT care less.

Jeebus, why am I arguing with an imbecile?

 

[JimBowie1958]

There are more than a few contradictory laws and exceptions in this land, ...

Which has nothing to do with the mechanics of the current twisted spin you are giving this law against booby trapping where no injuries occur.

You are being absurd to cover your tracks about something you are obviously very incorrect about.

But you will keep going like some evil cousin of the Energizer Bunny, lol.

If you say so sparky......

And you continue to prove my point while pretending that you are not doing so.

Priceless

 

[eflatminor]

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?

The law clearly states that he is liable IF the person is injured. He has no injury, therefore he isn't liable.

Ya should have read further..........

It is illegal to set a booby trap on one's own property to prevent intruders.

No ifs, ands or buts included in that statement. Oops........

Also, what if one of the younger neighborhood kids had come on the property (just being a kid) and received the shock, the owner would most likely be in jail and the parents suing the crap out of him..... And in this era of litigation would most likely win.

They wouldn't win if I was on that jury.

I could care less

Okeedookee. Not sure why you posted it then, but okay.

 

[Ringel05]

I posted I link to the law at the very first. Problem?

The problem isnt with the law but with your ridiculous spin to the law, dude.

This is an obvious point but you are going to do the Tar Baby Dance and keep up with all these idiotic responses while ignoring the obvious.

Standard libtard deflection bullshit.

I knew you'd fall back on that, you can't help yourself, it's hardwired stupidity.

And you still duck the obvious point; laws against booby traps are applied to cases where someone is injured and none other.

But keep deflecting, dude, it is hilarious.

Look knumb knut. All I did was post a legal link and reiterate what it said. Now I'm the bad guy......... Nope folks, ya can't make this shit up........

 

[Ringel05]

There are more than a few contradictory laws and exceptions in this land, ...

Which has nothing to do with the mechanics of the current twisted spin you are giving this law against booby trapping where no injuries occur.

You are being absurd to cover your tracks about something you are obviously very incorrect about.

But you will keep going like some evil cousin of the Energizer Bunny, lol.

If you say so sparky......

And you continue to prove my point while pretending that you are not doing so.

Priceless

Keep spinnin' Sparky, keep spinnin', it's all you know how to do.

 

[JimBowie1958]

I posted I link to the law at the very first. Problem?

The problem isnt with the law but with your ridiculous spin to the law, dude.

This is an obvious point but you are going to do the Tar Baby Dance and keep up with all these idiotic responses while ignoring the obvious.

Standard libtard deflection bullshit.

I knew you'd fall back on that, you can't help yourself, it's hardwired stupidity.

And you still duck the obvious point; laws against booby traps are applied to cases where someone is injured and none other.

But keep deflecting, dude, it is hilarious.

Look knumb knut. All I did was post a legal link and reiterate what it said. Now I'm the bad guy......... Nope folks, ya can't make this shit up........

That is not all you did and the thread shows it is not.

You argued that whether a person was actually injured from a booby trap was not relevant to whether you break that law with a booby trap.

You are obviously wrong and this has been repeatedly shown to you, but like the standard idiot libtard you persist arguing the point to your own humiliation, but you dont see it.

That is why I am persisting in my responses while online, as I want to give you enough rope to keep hanging yourself as it is quite comical.

 

[JimBowie1958]

There are more than a few contradictory laws and exceptions in this land, ...

Which has nothing to do with the mechanics of the current twisted spin you are giving this law against booby trapping where no injuries occur.

You are being absurd to cover your tracks about something you are obviously very incorrect about.

But you will keep going like some evil cousin of the Energizer Bunny, lol.

If you say so sparky......

And you continue to prove my point while pretending that you are not doing so.

Priceless

Keep spinnin' Sparky, keep spinnin', it's all you know how to do.

You still are being ridiculous and dont understand why.

roflmao

 

[Ringel05]

The law clearly states that he is liable IF the person is injured. He has no injury, therefore he isn't liable.

Ya should have read further..........

It is illegal to set a booby trap on one's own property to prevent intruders.

No ifs, ands or buts included in that statement. Oops........

Also, what if one of the younger neighborhood kids had come on the property (just being a kid) and received the shock, the owner would most likely be in jail and the parents suing the crap out of him..... And in this era of litigation would most likely win.

They wouldn't win if I was on that jury.

I could care less

Okeedookee. Not sure why you posted it then, but okay.

Welllllllll, maybe if your read from the very beginning and not jumped right into the end of the thread............ (That would be start on page one.......)

 

[JimBowie1958]

The law clearly states that he is liable IF the person is injured. He has no injury, therefore he isn't liable.

Ya should have read further..........

It is illegal to set a booby trap on one's own property to prevent intruders.

No ifs, ands or buts included in that statement. Oops........

Also, what if one of the younger neighborhood kids had come on the property (just being a kid) and received the shock, the owner would most likely be in jail and the parents suing the crap out of him..... And in this era of litigation would most likely win.

They wouldn't win if I was on that jury.

I could care less

Okeedookee. Not sure why you posted it then, but okay.

Because he is trolling and doesnt care what he posts as long as it builds his count and possibly pisses off someone.

 

[JimBowie1958]

Ya should have read further..........
No ifs, ands or buts included in that statement. Oops........

Also, what if one of the younger neighborhood kids had come on the property (just being a kid) and received the shock, the owner would most likely be in jail and the parents suing the crap out of him..... And in this era of litigation would most likely win.

They wouldn't win if I was on that jury.

I could care less

Okeedookee. Not sure why you posted it then, but okay.

Welllllllll, maybe if your read from the very beginning and not jumped right into the end of the thread............ (That would be start on page one.......)

I did and you are wrong, completely 100% wrong, and are too libtarded to see why, as well as too libtarded to see why your persistent argument is making you look like a jack ass.

 

[Ringel05]

I posted I link to the law at the very first. Problem?

The problem isnt with the law but with your ridiculous spin to the law, dude.

This is an obvious point but you are going to do the Tar Baby Dance and keep up with all these idiotic responses while ignoring the obvious.

Standard libtard deflection bullshit.

I knew you'd fall back on that, you can't help yourself, it's hardwired stupidity.

And you still duck the obvious point; laws against booby traps are applied to cases where someone is injured and none other.

But keep deflecting, dude, it is hilarious.

Look knumb knut. All I did was post a legal link and reiterate what it said. Now I'm the bad guy......... Nope folks, ya can't make this shit up........

That is not all you did and the thread shows it is not.

You argued that whether a person was actually injured from a booby trap was not relevant to whether you break that law with a booby trap.

You are obviously wrong and this has been repeatedly shown to you, but like the standard idiot libtard you persist arguing the point to your own humiliation, but you dont see it.

That is why I am persisting in my responses while online, as I want to give you enough rope to keep hanging yourself as it is quite comical.

No, I said what the link said and I said it was....... wait for it........ possible you could be arrested or sued based on the law.

 

[Ringel05]

Ya should have read further..........
No ifs, ands or buts included in that statement. Oops........

Also, what if one of the younger neighborhood kids had come on the property (just being a kid) and received the shock, the owner would most likely be in jail and the parents suing the crap out of him..... And in this era of litigation would most likely win.

They wouldn't win if I was on that jury.

I could care less

Okeedookee. Not sure why you posted it then, but okay.

Because he is trolling and doesnt care what he posts as long as it builds his count and possibly pisses off someone.

If I piss you off then my day is made.

 

[jon_berzerk]

That's not the point, the point is booby trapping personal property for any reason is illegal. ....
Loosing the debate? What debate, that there are laws against booby trapping property?

Then banks are violating booby trap laws for putting dye packs in with stolen cash?

Oooops, injury has to be established or no DA is going to take that case to court.

well dye packs can cause damage and even have

in this case the bank was not charged for using a booby trap

491 S.E.2d 915 (1997) | TUCKER FED. SAV. & LOAN ASS'N v. BALOGH | Leagle.com

 

[Ringel05]

Also, what if one of the younger neighborhood kids had come on the property (just being a kid) and received the shock, the owner would most likely be in jail and the parents suing the crap out of him..... And in this era of litigation would most likely win.

They wouldn't win if I was on that jury.

I could care less

Okeedookee. Not sure why you posted it then, but okay.

Welllllllll, maybe if your read from the very beginning and not jumped right into the end of the thread............ (That would be start on page one.......)

I did and you are wrong, completely 100% wrong, and are too libtarded to see why, as well as too libtarded to see why your persistent argument is making you look like a jack ass.

No knumb knut, it's not what I said, it's what you think I said...... Typical hack.....

 

[JimBowie1958]

That's not the point, the point is booby trapping personal property for any reason is illegal. ....
Loosing the debate? What debate, that there are laws against booby trapping property?

Then banks are violating booby trap laws for putting dye packs in with stolen cash?

Oooops, injury has to be established or no DA is going to take that case to court.

well dye packs ca cause damage and even have

in this case the bank was not charged for using a booby trap

491 S.E.2d 915 (1997) | TUCKER FED. SAV. & LOAN ASS'N v. BALOGH | Leagle.com

But Ringel doesnt care as he has already admitted. He is not arguing any facts,he is just trolling now. He has been proven wrong and is just being spiteful.