I'd pull this out of the trunk and go to town...
Overcompensating?
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
I'd pull this out of the trunk and go to town...
You really woke up this morning, and wondered: how can I make a tyhread where I can fantasize running over a liberal with my car, and not sound like a murderous punk?
Get a life, dude. There's people with different views ALL around you. BOO!
Just like the hippie OWSers waking up and wondering how they can intimidate people going to work, preach socialist and communist ideals, and not sound like a punk??
In FL we no longer have to flee.
The phrase, "I was in fear for my life" allows me to open fire
Offer them a job, they'll run like hell for sure.
Hartwig said witnesses had differing accounts of what happened, with some saying the driver appeared to have gunned the Mercedes into the victims in frustration and others saying he had been provoked by activists pounding on his car.
Mercedes hits 2 Occupy Oakland protesters
Officers gathered information from the driver and witnesses, and now the Oakland Police Department will handle the investigation, Hartwig said.
And video of the Oakland incident.
Caught on camera: Car runs over #OccupyOakland protester - storyful
Read more: Mercedes hits 2 Occupy Oakland protesters
Offer them a job, they'll run like hell for sure.
Soap,shampoo and toothbrush being thrown out in the middle of them should scatter them pretty good.
It was in California.
As a co-owner of a gun shop and having a CHL, I would unleash my .45 Gold Cup on their ass!
You have good taste in weaponry my friend. Personally, I am a Ruger man - someday, I MAY get a Colt.
I had a P-95. The Ruger P - series is the AK-47 of hand guns. When I bought mine I shot the crap out of it and never cleaned it. it lived under the seat of my truck. Went boom every time I pulled the trigger. I may buy another one here soon and get my CCW.
The Internet Tough Guys trying to out-tough each other on this thread makes it PURE GOLD!
The Internet Tough Guys trying to out-tough each other on this thread makes it PURE GOLD!
You have good taste in weaponry my friend. Personally, I am a Ruger man - someday, I MAY get a Colt.
I had a P-95. The Ruger P - series is the AK-47 of hand guns. When I bought mine I shot the crap out of it and never cleaned it. it lived under the seat of my truck. Went boom every time I pulled the trigger. I may buy another one here soon and get my CCW.
.40 cal Smith for me, but if it's in the house I have no issues with 12 gauge .00 buck shot.
Depends on the laws in the state you're in.
Self Defense Statutes
(Texas Penal Code)
"A person is justified in using deadly force against another to protect his property to the degree he reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to prevent the other's imminent commission of arson, burglary, robbery, theft during the nighttime or criminal mischief during the nighttime, and he reasonably believes that the property cannot be protected by any other means."
Here in LA I can shoot your ass through the door from inside my house if I reasonably believe you are attempting to break in and harm me.
California Penal Code 197 states; Homicide is also justifiable when committed by any person in any of the following cases: 1. When resisting any attempt to murder any person, or to commit a felony, or to do some great bodily injury upon any person; or, 2. When committed in defense of habitation, property, or person, against one who manifestly intends or endeavors, by violence or surprise, to commit a felony, or against one who manifestly intends and endeavors, in a violent, riotous or tumultuous manner, to enter the habitation of another for the purpose of offering violence to any person therein; or, 3. When committed in the lawful defense of such person, or of a wife or husband, parent, child, master, mistress, or servant of such person, when there is reasonable ground to apprehend a design to commit a felony or to do some great bodily injury, and imminent danger of such design being accomplished; but such person, or the person in whose behalf the defense was made, if he was the assailant or engaged in mutual combat, must really and in good faith have endeavored to decline any further struggle before the homicide was committed; or, 4. When necessarily committed in attempting, by lawful ways and means, to apprehend any person for any felony committed, or in lawfully suppressing any riot, or in lawfully keeping and preserving the peace.
So the use of deadly force may be justifiable when necessary to resist the attempt to commit a forcible and life-threatening crime, provided that a reasonable person in the same or similar situation would believe that -
(a) the person killed intended to commit a forcible and life-threatening crime;
(b) there was imminent danger of such crime being accomplished; and
(c) the person acted under the belief that such force was necessary to save himself or herself or another from death or a forcible and life-threatening crime.
The gun owners here are cracking me up.
So are the libs, but for different reasons.
Here in LA I can shoot your ass through the door from inside my house if I reasonably believe you are attempting to break in and harm me.
California Penal Code 197 states; Homicide is also justifiable when committed by any person in any of the following cases: 1. When resisting any attempt to murder any person, or to commit a felony, or to do some great bodily injury upon any person; or, 2. When committed in defense of habitation, property, or person, against one who manifestly intends or endeavors, by violence or surprise, to commit a felony, or against one who manifestly intends and endeavors, in a violent, riotous or tumultuous manner, to enter the habitation of another for the purpose of offering violence to any person therein; or, 3. When committed in the lawful defense of such person, or of a wife or husband, parent, child, master, mistress, or servant of such person, when there is reasonable ground to apprehend a design to commit a felony or to do some great bodily injury, and imminent danger of such design being accomplished; but such person, or the person in whose behalf the defense was made, if he was the assailant or engaged in mutual combat, must really and in good faith have endeavored to decline any further struggle before the homicide was committed; or, 4. When necessarily committed in attempting, by lawful ways and means, to apprehend any person for any felony committed, or in lawfully suppressing any riot, or in lawfully keeping and preserving the peace.
So the use of deadly force may be justifiable when necessary to resist the attempt to commit a forcible and life-threatening crime, provided that a reasonable person in the same or similar situation would believe that -
(a) the person killed intended to commit a forcible and life-threatening crime;
(b) there was imminent danger of such crime being accomplished; and
(c) the person acted under the belief that such force was necessary to save himself or herself or another from death or a forcible and life-threatening crime.
LA = Louisiana, not Los Angeles.
The gun owners here are cracking me up.
So are the libs, but for different reasons.
Oh yeah.....am I the only gun owner in the thread that said they WOULDN'T brandish their firearm in that situation?
California Penal Code 197 states; Homicide is also justifiable when committed by any person in any of the following cases: 1. When resisting any attempt to murder any person, or to commit a felony, or to do some great bodily injury upon any person; or, 2. When committed in defense of habitation, property, or person, against one who manifestly intends or endeavors, by violence or surprise, to commit a felony, or against one who manifestly intends and endeavors, in a violent, riotous or tumultuous manner, to enter the habitation of another for the purpose of offering violence to any person therein; or, 3. When committed in the lawful defense of such person, or of a wife or husband, parent, child, master, mistress, or servant of such person, when there is reasonable ground to apprehend a design to commit a felony or to do some great bodily injury, and imminent danger of such design being accomplished; but such person, or the person in whose behalf the defense was made, if he was the assailant or engaged in mutual combat, must really and in good faith have endeavored to decline any further struggle before the homicide was committed; or, 4. When necessarily committed in attempting, by lawful ways and means, to apprehend any person for any felony committed, or in lawfully suppressing any riot, or in lawfully keeping and preserving the peace.
So the use of deadly force may be justifiable when necessary to resist the attempt to commit a forcible and life-threatening crime, provided that a reasonable person in the same or similar situation would believe that -
(a) the person killed intended to commit a forcible and life-threatening crime;
(b) there was imminent danger of such crime being accomplished; and
(c) the person acted under the belief that such force was necessary to save himself or herself or another from death or a forcible and life-threatening crime.
LA = Louisiana, not Los Angeles.
Hahaha I was wondering when you were going to catch that! Too funny!!
I've known for quite some time you were in N'awlins. I was just giving you grief.
Laissez le bon temp rouler!
The Internet Tough Guys trying to out-tough each other on this thread makes it PURE GOLD!
The gun owners here are cracking me up.
So are the libs, but for different reasons.
Oh yeah.....am I the only gun owner in the thread that said they WOULDN'T brandish their firearm in that situation?
What is gold is the ows loons proving us right.The Internet Tough Guys trying to out-tough each other on this thread makes it PURE GOLD!