testtest

DeSantis warns looters Florida is a 2nd Amendment State during press conference

17BF4659-23ED-4AEA-AD1F-DC80C451FC0B.jpeg
 
I have some experience with this. Historically my road goes under along with some houses every couple years. My house, built in 1956, never had water in it until April 2017 when the river broke water level records by 4'. Records that stood since 1904 or so. I lost all my stuff except my truck, my guns and my guitars. And my wife lost everything except her computers. We rebuilt and are now over insured.

So I have spent many days trapped in my neighborhood with the only way in or out being by boat. And I have watched hordes of strangers "Looky loo'ing" their way down the street after the water receded. So I have spent a good deal of time wading through my neighborhood with a shotgun making sure no one was coming up around the back in a boat to rob any of my neighbors who were forced to evacuate and leave their homes and possessions unguarded.
 
Smith Hammer said:
Like I said, I support the sentiment. But my opinions and the law aren't the same thing. Just because you "don't know" whether a looter is armed or not, doesn't automatically provide justifiable cause for lethal force. I'm just pointing out that if you shoot someone for running off with your tv, good luck with the legalities. Unfortunately, that's the world we live in.

I have no sympathy for burglers either. But a "forcible felony" in which it turns out the perp wasn't armed, and was merely running off with your stuff, and hadn't threatened you with lethal force, is going to open you up for a field day against a prosecutor.

Again - I get the sentiment, and I agree with it.
Click to expand...
I suspect that any burglar around our area found deceased inside and looting a dwelling would also be found armed with a cheap revolver in his "cold, dead, hand". At the very least a great big kitchen knife. Some folks around these parts are just that hard headed ..... and set in their character.... Know what I'm sayin"? (y);)

HayesGreener said it best: "just because you can, does not mean you should". Y'all all be careful out there!
 
rmc51 said:
Yep! I would vote for that.
I might add a line on the bottom, under "No warning shot will be fired"- because of the increased price of ammo.

View attachment 31326
Click to expand...
Maybe, because of the increased price of ammo; should be before the, No warning shot will be fired, so it would read:

"Because of the increased price of ammo where will be No warning shot fired"

Yep, that sounds better!
1664917271831.gif
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top