Poll: What would have you done?

[xxBLOOD88SHOTxx]

Dunno man. That's just not how I raised to handle things. If it happens again though, we will be pursuing legal action to protect my ass from getting into trouble he stirs.

Well don't you think that is kind of a backwards way to work it? I wasn't raised to let people walk all over me, but you have to pick and choose your battles. In this case, beating the guy's ass would only result in bad for you. Aren't you in college or work at one or something like that, would your employer like that you were charged with assault? What about future employers? Think about what you could lose over this.

Had he assaulted you or her first it would be a different story, but with the info you gave us I can't justify you smashing his face in and being justified in doing so.





Never raise you hands in anger, unless you're absolutely sure you can get away with it.

 

[96 DX Hatch]

I think at this point you would be covered though.

Assuming your states laws are similar to ours, and if he comes back trying to start s**t again or even just staying after repeatedly being told to vacate, you should be in the clear if it got physical within reason. Who are they going to believe, the homeowner or the guy that was (witnessed being) told multiple times to vacate the premises and began threatening people.

My fear would be with the weaker ones in that situation then going after property damage because they're too scared to do it in person.

 

[joe7987]

^True. I'm not sure if there are stand your ground laws in Washington, though. Here, in FL, if someone is on your property and you feel threatened (and you can justify it reasonably), you can shoot someone and it's ok.

 

[buzzbombtom]

threatening a neighbor with physical harm, implied, is grounds for him fearing for his life. he did not touch your wife, he pointed at her, he yelled at her, you lost your cool. you need to act your age.

"me big man, me protect my family"
f-uck that shi-t man.... grow a set and think with a level head. neighbors are always getting into others lives, you cant go around threatening people, ESPECIALLY in written form.

you are wrong.

are you still smoking as much as you used to? its time to grow up, this should be a wake up call.

 

[joe7987]

I don't know.. I think I would have done something pretty similar.

I wouldn't have sent the threatening messages, but if it got to that point, I would have acted very similarly.

 

[XpL0d3r]

are you still smoking as much as you used to?

This has absolutely nothing to do with the situation.

 

[buzzbombtom]

This has absolutely nothing to do with the situation.

no, it has a lot to do with it, its called building a case buddy.

 

[TokyoSkies]

Well don't you think that is kind of a backwards way to work it? I wasn't raised to let people walk all over me, but you have to pick and choose your battles. In this case, beating the guy's ass would only result in bad for you. Aren't you in college or work at one or something like that, would your employer like that you were charged with assault? What about future employers? Think about what you could lose over this.

Had he assaulted you or her first it would be a different story, but with the info you gave us I can't justify you smashing his face in and being justified in doing so.





Never raise you hands in anger, unless you're absolutely sure you can get away with it.

Not entirely accurate. If the guy was unwilling to leave the premises and was causing an issue, he has a right to act in defense of his family. If he felt threatened in any way, he has witnesses that will state the neighbor wouldn't leave, even after being asked over and over. What else was he suppose to do? Physical altercations may not be the correct choice, but they happen sometimes.

threatening a neighbor with physical harm, implied, is grounds for him fearing for his life. he did not touch your wife, he pointed at her, he yelled at her, you lost your cool. you need to act your age.

"me big man, me protect my family"
f-uck that shi-t man.... grow a set and think with a level head. neighbors are always getting into others lives, you cant go around threatening people, ESPECIALLY in written form.

you are wrong.

are you still smoking as much as you used to? its time to grow up, this should be a wake up call.

Just. No. No. The "Stand Your Ground" law applies federally nation wide in a sense. Some states are more "shoot someone on your property, oh well", where others are more "Get the offender off your property by whatever means necessary if they are an immediate threat to you and your family". In particular, the law (also called statutory law) allows you to defend your home/property/domicile if you feel it's threatened. OP's actions could be justified in that sense. Again, what is he supposed to do? He's only human, and when backed against a wall, any normal person will react accordingly.

no, it has a lot to do with it, its called building a case buddy.

No, you're just trying to dig up anything you can to use against him. That's building a case via a s**t attorney.

 

[buzzbombtom]

lol, a shi-t lawyer? no anyone who has half a brain would look at mind altering drugs as a source of irrational emotions... sorry you cant see that

 

[joe7987]

Just a reminder to keep it civil. Debates are fine, but keep it chill with personal assaults.

 

[TokyoSkies]

lol, a shi-t lawyer? no anyone who has half a brain would look at mind altering drugs as a source of irrational emotions... sorry you cant see that

Pot isn't usually associated with psychopathic rage, unfortunately.. In fact, the opposite.

Just a reminder to keep it civil. Debates are fine, but keep it chill with personal assaults.

Tom and I may not see eye to eye, but that doesn't mean I don't think he rocks a speedo better than anyone on this forum

 

[xxBLOOD88SHOTxx]

Not entirely accurate. If the guy was unwilling to leave the premises and was causing an issue, he has a right to act in defense of his family. If he felt threatened in any way, he has witnesses that will state the neighbor wouldn't leave, even after being asked over and over. What else was he suppose to do? Physical altercations may not be the correct choice, but they happen sometimes.

Just. No. No. The "Stand Your Ground" law applies federally nation wide in a sense. Some states are more "shoot someone on your property, oh well", where others are more "Get the offender off your property by whatever means necessary if they are an immediate threat to you and your family". In particular, the law (also called statutory law) allows you to defend your home/property/domicile if you feel it's threatened. OP's actions could be justified in that sense. Again, what is he supposed to do? He's only human, and when backed against a wall, any normal person will react accordingly.



No, you're just trying to dig up anything you can to use against him. That's building a case via a s*** attorney.

If there is no threat of bodily harm or property damage, then just have the cops remove the person. There are just to many ways to get yourself in trouble by taking the physical route in that situation.


And lol @ weed playing a part in his rage, I cant count the amount of times I got high and wanted to beat someone's ass.

 

[XpL0d3r]

no, it has a lot to do with it, its called building a case buddy.

Sorry, I didn't quote the whole part that I meant to. You mentioned smoking immediately followed by growing up in the next sentence. Not smoking week has nothing to do with "growing up". If those are your views so be it, but I disagree.

lol, a shi-t lawyer? no anyone who has half a brain would look at mind altering drugs as a source of irrational emotions... sorry you cant see that

IMO If he wasn't under the influence at that point and time, it doesn't matter. At all.

And lol @ weed playing a part in his rage, I cant count the amount of times I got high and wanted to beat someone's ass.

You weren't smoking weed then. Cause everyone I've EVER known who smokes gets less irritated / more calm. Alcohol yes, definitely not greens.

 

[xxBLOOD88SHOTxx]

Sorry, I didn't quote the whole part that I meant to. You mentioned smoking immediately followed by growing up in the next sentence. Not smoking week has nothing to do with "growing up". If those are your views so be it, but I disagree.



IMO If he wasn't under the influence at that point and time, it doesn't matter. At all.



You weren't smoking weed then. Cause everyone I've EVER known who smokes gets less irritated / more calm. Alcohol yes, definitely not greens.

We both know I was being sarcastic right?

 

[XpL0d3r]

Nope had no idea to be honest. Responded quickly before leaving for lunch. My bad lol

 

[young_]

Wow.. This thread

 

[Failsafe88]

Physical removal of person would have been fine. No real need for the cops as long as the other party is showing signs of aggression which can be taken as a form of threat. Laws differ so it would be a smart idea to check the local laws to decide what course of action should be taken during these types of situations.

 

[XpL0d3r]

Use of Force according to WA:

9A.16.020 Use of force — When lawful

The use, attempt, or offer to use force upon or toward the person of another is not unlawful in the following cases:

(1) stuff (irrelevant)
(2) more stuff
(3) Whenever used by a party about to be injured, or by another lawfully aiding him or her, in preventing or attempting to prevent an offense against his or her person, or a malicious trespass, or other malicious interference with real or personal property lawfully in his or her possession, in case the force is not more than is necessary;

Trespassing according to WA:

9A.52.080 Criminal Trespass in the Second Degree

(1) A person is guilty of criminal trespass in the second degree if he knowingly enters or remains unlawfully in or upon premises of another under circumstances not constituting criminal trespass in the first degree.

(first degree was IN a building, second degree is on premises).

Soooo...
The guy was trespassing in the second degree. According to 9A 16.020 sub 3, Kyle was within his limitations to use force. The only arguments I could see is what is considered "malicious trespass" as stated above, and what's "reasonable" according to below.

9A.16.010 Definitions.

(1) "Necessary" means that no reasonably effective alternative to the use of force appeared to exist and that the amount of force used was reasonable to effect the lawful purpose intended.

Source: http://apps.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=9A.16&full=true#9A.16.020

 

[joe7987]

We've got a detective on our hands..

It's reasonable. I think it would have been borderline, depending on how "no reasonably effective alternative to the use of force appeared to exist" was interpreted. Regardless, I don't think that's what was being asked here. He just wants to know if he served appropriate "street justice."

 

[Kswest]

We've got a detective on our hands..

It's reasonable. I think it would have been borderline, depending on how "no reasonably effective alternative to the use of force appeared to exist" was interpreted. Regardless, I don't think that's what was being asked here. He just wants to know if he served appropriate "street justice."

Joe, you crack me up sometimes. I knew about the legal/illegal trespass thing as my family lived next to a mormon property and they consistently and constantly trespassed onto our property.

As far as what this thread was for, I was more looking to see if I was crazy in acting the way I did, or not. Outside of wack-a-doodle BBtom, every single person I've talked to since Sunday has agreed with me that if they were in that situation, they would have done the same thing. That's all this was inquiring about.