Democrat Neighbor Electrocuted THEN Charged with Trespassing

[JimBowie1958]

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.....

No, it is what you said, repeatedly.

 

[eflatminor]

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.......)

So you do care? Anywho, you suggested a kid's family could sue if he touched that sign. I simply stated that's not how I would vote were I on that jury. Has nothing to do with any criminal aspect of your rant.

So, Welllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll, I'd agree with you, but you're wrong.

 

[Ringel05]

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

Sooooooo, the link I posted citing the federal law was wrong and now I'm being held responsible for the law being wrong? Really????

 

[JimBowie1958]

If I piss you off then my day is made.

"If I piss you off then my day is made." = troll.

 

[JimBowie1958]

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.

Bullshit, you said it would happen in multiple places, troll.

 

[Ringel05]

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.....

No, it is what you said, repeatedly.

No, it's your interpretation of what I said, hell it's a hack's stock in trade, "let's make it say what I want it to say".

 

[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

or this one

Dye pack injury causing third-degree burns. - PubMed - NCBI

 

[eflatminor]

If I piss you off then my day is made.

"If I piss you off then my day is made." = troll.

Is Truthmatters back???

 

[Ringel05]

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.

Bullshit, you said it would happen in multiple places, troll.

And I still wasn't citing the law then????!!!!! Could you possibly be any dumber?

 

[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 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

Sooooooo, the link I posted citing the federal law was wrong and now I'm being held responsible for the law being wrong? Really????

yup your twisted

 

[JimBowie1958]

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.....

No, it is what you said, repeatedly.

No, it's your interpretation of what I said, hell it's a hack's stock in trade, "let's make it say what I want it to say".

No, it is what you said. Anyone can see it, but you will argue the point anyway.

Ho hum, you are turning into Boring the Troll, lol.

 

[JimBowie1958]

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.

Bullshit, you said it would happen in multiple places, troll.

And I still wasn't citing the law then????!!!!! Could you possibly be any dumber?

You were twisting the interpretation of the law, lol, now you are just lying.

 

[Ringel05]

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

Sooooooo, the link I posted citing the federal law was wrong and now I'm being held responsible for the law being wrong? Really????

yup your twisted

Am I twisted? Never denied it........

And that's you're....... Just thought you'd like to know.

 

[Ringel05]

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.....

No, it is what you said, repeatedly.

No, it's your interpretation of what I said, hell it's a hack's stock in trade, "let's make it say what I want it to say".

No, it is what you said. Anyone can see it, but you will argue the point anyway.

Ho hum, you are turning into Boring the Troll, lol.

Sure thing there Guno....... Uuummmmm, what was your name again?

 

[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

Sooooooo, the link I posted citing the federal law was wrong and now I'm being held responsible for the law being wrong? Really????

yup your twisted

Am I twisted? Never denied it........

And that's you're....... Just thought you'd like to know.

You are a sick lying Piece of shit Troll.

You have been proven wrong 15 pages ago and you are still giving gales of laughter as you try to walk back everything while spinning like mad to pretend you have always been right.

roflmao

 

[Ringel05]

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.

Bullshit, you said it would happen in multiple places, troll.

And I still wasn't citing the law then????!!!!! Could you possibly be any dumber?

You were twisting the interpretation of the law, lol, now you are just lying.

More interpretation I see....... Honestly you can't help yourself rdea....... Damn, I keep forgetting you name.......

 

[Ringel05]

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

Sooooooo, the link I posted citing the federal law was wrong and now I'm being held responsible for the law being wrong? Really????

yup your twisted

Am I twisted? Never denied it........

And that's you're....... Just thought you'd like to know.

You are a sick lying Piece of shit Troll.

You have been proven wrong 15 pages ago and you are still giving gales of laughter as you try to walk back everything while spinning like mad to pretend you have always been right.

roflmao

Do you always shot the messenger or is this something new for you?

 

[JimBowie1958]

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.....

No, it is what you said, repeatedly.

No, it's your interpretation of what I said, hell it's a hack's stock in trade, "let's make it say what I want it to say".

No, it is what you said. Anyone can see it, but you will argue the point anyway.

Ho hum, you are turning into Boring the Troll, lol.

Sure thing there Guno....... Uuummmmm, what was your name again?

You were proven wrong when you started this idiotic sidetrack, but you keep spinning it backwards because you cannot bare facing the fact that once again you have been demonstrated to be an idiot.

 

[jon_berzerk]

PENAL CODE
Sec. 9.44. USE OF DEVICE TO PROTECT PROPERTY. The justification afforded by Sections 9.41 and 9.43 applies to the use of a device to protect land or tangible, movable property if:
(1) the device is not designed to cause, or known by the actor to create a substantial risk of causing, death or serious bodily injury; and
(2) use of the device is reasonable under all the circumstances as the actor reasonably believes them to be when he installs the device.

 

[JimBowie1958]

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.

Bullshit, you said it would happen in multiple places, troll.

And I still wasn't citing the law then????!!!!! Could you possibly be any dumber?

You were twisting the interpretation of the law, lol, now you are just lying.

More interpretation I see....... Honestly you can't help yourself rdea....... Damn, I keep forgetting you name.......

Again, you lie, spin and lie some more.

You have not forgotten who I am Clown.