Kyle In some states I believe it is legal to shoot trespassers if you first fire a warning shot. So, give a few crews a rifle and if they see someone vandilizing property, then they fire a warning shot, and if the person doesn't stop defacing property, shoot them. A few stories on the news, and graffiti on railroads will almost stop. If the police get mad at the RR, then you can say you are worried that these people are terrorist, and you are worried about them blowing up a train. General trespassers will be given a warning to get off RR property. Also, give crews spray cans of common colors, and when they are checking the train, they can cover some of the graffiti. If crews did this every week, there would be almost no graffiti. Problem solved!!!
In some states I believe it is legal to shoot trespassers if you first fire a warning shot. So, give a few crews a rifle and if they see someone vandilizing property, then they fire a warning shot, and if the person doesn't stop defacing property, shoot them. A few stories on the news, and graffiti on railroads will almost stop. If the police get mad at the RR, then you can say you are worried that these people are terrorist, and you are worried about them blowing up a train. General trespassers will be given a warning to get off RR property. Also, give crews spray cans of common colors, and when they are checking the train, they can cover some of the graffiti. If crews did this every week, there would be almost no graffiti. Problem solved!!!
Kyle you later named several states in which "someone" told you it is justifiable to use deadly force to stop a trespasser and cited Alabama as one such state.
I had hoped I could get the answer off handgunlaw.us web site for Alabama. It sent me to several Alabama Statutes. Sec 13A-3-25 allows use of deadly force against an idividual engaged in criminal trespass ONLY in defense of a person or to prevent arson. There are three degrees of criminal trespass, in a dwelling, in a building, and one other I did not bother with. Second degree, in a building, specifically prohibits deadly force against a trespasser.
If you or anyone else cares to find the facts, this is the easiest way to do it. I am 99.999% sure there is no jurisdiction in the US where shooting evil doers with spray paint cans will be determined to be justifiable homocide.
Mac McCulloch
.
Thanks to Chris / CopCarSS for my avatar.
Murphy, you seem to have missed where Norm said "defend oneself". If the vandal's intent is to deface property I don't see how you're allowed to cut loos a clip off of anyone's AK-47, in fact Kyle may be justified in cutting loose on you since he could argue you trying forcibly to take his non-threatening AK-47, for which I assume he has proper permits, represents a reasonable threat to his person.
Has anyone not noticed the difference between deadly force to protect property and deadly force to protect people?
Patrick Boylan
Free yacht rides, 27' sailboat, zip code 19114 Delaware River, get great Delair bridge photos from the river. Send me a private message
Murphy Siding Well, if you're going to contort the meaning of things, it appears that you are saying that the owners of the property in question can defend themselves if they are in mortal danger? Never mind that you seem to be confusing the fact that what you are proposing as being legal generally only applies in your HOME.
Well, if you're going to contort the meaning of things, it appears that you are saying that the owners of the property in question can defend themselves if they are in mortal danger? Never mind that you seem to be confusing the fact that what you are proposing as being legal generally only applies in your HOME.
Norris,
I believe that varies by state. In Michigan one can defend oneself anywhere they have a legal right to be. YMMV.
Norm
No, Kyle is not right. He did not say "you can shoot trespassers", he said it's legal to shoot trespassers.
Kyle In some states I believe it is legal to shoot trespassers if you first fire a warning shot
In some states I believe it is legal to shoot trespassers if you first fire a warning shot
Kyle I know many states where it is legal to shoot thieves.
I know many states where it is legal to shoot thieves.
The first time he expressed it as an opinion, subsequently stated it as fact, or at least I think "I believe" is expressing opinion, and "I know" is expressing fact.
Ordinarilly I'd consider "you can" to mean legal, but you follow up saying "penalty varies". If there's a penalty I don't think the authorities feel that "you can", in other words I think that means it's not legal, and there can be serious repercussions. Even if one has the ability to shoot someone else I believe the law will not take too kindly if you didn't have a good reason, and I believe protecting property, as I've mentioned before, falls below the threshold.
Yes, if you confront trespassers who then threaten you, you may be justified to use deadly force to protect yourself, but Kyle did not qualify his "legal to shoot" posts, he just said "trespassers" regardless of what they were threatening.
Kyle is right. You can shoot trespassers but the penalty varies from state to state. Typically, defending property is not a just cause. However, once the defense of your property turns into a situation where your person is in mortal danger then fire away.
Odds are confronting some of these vandals might require a little lead flying. If you read about the graffiti culture you will see an illiterate, drugged and sometimes violet group. Not the harmless artist many are sympathetic to.
Jim Norton
Huntsville, AL
Kyle gardendance I don't think they've counted all the votes, but I thought Kyle hadn't made first place yet. Surely there are others more deserving of favorite troll. Maybe if he keeps trying harder, but for now I put Kyle at 3rd favorite. DELETE YOUR POST AT ONCE!!!! I WILL NOT TOLERATE PEOPLE CALLING ME NAMES LIKE "TROLL"!!!! Name calling is a childish act! Most civilized people frown upon this behaviour!!! Once you delete your post, I will delete this one. Thank you for your cooperation.
gardendance I don't think they've counted all the votes, but I thought Kyle hadn't made first place yet. Surely there are others more deserving of favorite troll. Maybe if he keeps trying harder, but for now I put Kyle at 3rd favorite.
I don't think they've counted all the votes, but I thought Kyle hadn't made first place yet. Surely there are others more deserving of favorite troll. Maybe if he keeps trying harder, but for now I put Kyle at 3rd favorite.
DELETE YOUR POST AT ONCE!!!! I WILL NOT TOLERATE PEOPLE CALLING ME NAMES LIKE "TROLL"!!!! Name calling is a childish act! Most civilized people frown upon this behaviour!!!
Once you delete your post, I will delete this one. Thank you for your cooperation.
Even if I knew how to delete my post, I wouldn't. I disagree with your opinion, but will defend to your death your right to express it, and hope you will let me express my opinion.
You're being rather selective, is there any reason, other than me putting you only at 3rd favorite, why you ask me to delete my post and not zugman, to whom you're number one favorite? If you keep treating me this way I might have to drop you down to 4th or 5th.
Kyle gardendance Kyle, in what states is it legal to use deadly force to protect property? I know many states where it is legal to shoot thieves. Personally I would rate vandalizing property the same as stealing since you cause financial loss to the owners in either case. I can't remember exactly which states, but I remember someone telling me Texas, Arizona, Nevada, Alabama, and others.
gardendance Kyle, in what states is it legal to use deadly force to protect property?
Kyle, in what states is it legal to use deadly force to protect property?
I know many states where it is legal to shoot thieves. Personally I would rate vandalizing property the same as stealing since you cause financial loss to the owners in either case. I can't remember exactly which states, but I remember someone telling me Texas, Arizona, Nevada, Alabama, and others.
Kyle, someone telling you is not the same as knowing the law, especially if this someone has no credentials. It's almost as bad as believing something one reads on the internet.
Also I did not ask you where it is legal to shoot thieves, but where it is legal to use deadly force to defend property. I based that question on your prior statement, not opinion, that in some states it's legal to shoot trespassers.
I believe it's legal to shoot someone, trespasser or not, who is threatening a person, but I don't believe it's legal in any state to shoot trespassers who are threatening only property, vandalizing or stealing. I hope I don't have to point out to you the difference between your wording, which was a statement, and my wording, which is an opinion.
Kyle's fascination with deadly force suggests that he places a low value on human life other than his own. I would wonder what he would do if the vandals were also carrying deadly force and decided to return the favor.
Kyle,
You should immediately retain a lawyer and set aside at least $250,000 to pay for your defense in the murder trial that is looming in your future.
Mac
dehusman On 9/11 I doubt the planes were covered in grafitti. The "evil doers" chose the targets because of the nature of the targets not because of their physical appearance. They attacked through layers of security way higher than anything at a railroad yard. If somebody is going to attack a tank car of chemicals they aren't going to do it because it has grafitti on it, they are going to do it because its a tank car of chemicals. If you really want a security risk, its these forums. I bet if you asked on a railfan forum if they knew what routes the oil trains operated on or asked about where they shipped some hazardous material, you could get dozens of responses detailing that type of information, complete with pictures and Google map links. The one benefit of this forum is that its pretty likely that before any real information would be posted the thread would break down into bickering about some point on semantics, thus averting a national crisis .
On 9/11 I doubt the planes were covered in grafitti. The "evil doers" chose the targets because of the nature of the targets not because of their physical appearance. They attacked through layers of security way higher than anything at a railroad yard.
If somebody is going to attack a tank car of chemicals they aren't going to do it because it has grafitti on it, they are going to do it because its a tank car of chemicals.
If you really want a security risk, its these forums. I bet if you asked on a railfan forum if they knew what routes the oil trains operated on or asked about where they shipped some hazardous material, you could get dozens of responses detailing that type of information, complete with pictures and Google map links. The one benefit of this forum is that its pretty likely that before any real information would be posted the thread would break down into bickering about some point on semantics, thus averting a national crisis .
The point is not that graffiti is a security risk. The point is that if someone can bring ladders and a ton of spray can without being noticed, then how hard would it be for a group of terrorist to walk up to a tank train with back packs loaded with bombs and attach them to the train. Planting the bombs could happen in a sorter period of time than painting the side of an auto rack.
You have violated some of the forum policies, including personal attacks and name calling. Since you refused to delete the content of the post, your post has been reported.
zugmann jimnorton Graffiti on any infrastructure sends a message that such is tolerated. On the railroads the invitation is there. The notion even exists that if the tagger leaves the data visible the defacement is agreeable. Kyle gets it and emphasizes a very important point. Let the terrorist follow the lead of the graffiti vandal and the nation's railways are extremely vulnerable to an attack. Security is great if its measured by how many photographers and joggers are caught. Yet, the industry continues to be outsmarted by a legion of illiterate artist entering and leaving the property at will. Good job Kyle. Fine. Fence in all ROWs and yards. Make watching trains/photographing them illegal. Shut down railfan websites. Doesn't address the thousands of private sidings, but it is a start, I guess.
jimnorton Graffiti on any infrastructure sends a message that such is tolerated. On the railroads the invitation is there. The notion even exists that if the tagger leaves the data visible the defacement is agreeable. Kyle gets it and emphasizes a very important point. Let the terrorist follow the lead of the graffiti vandal and the nation's railways are extremely vulnerable to an attack. Security is great if its measured by how many photographers and joggers are caught. Yet, the industry continues to be outsmarted by a legion of illiterate artist entering and leaving the property at will. Good job Kyle.
Graffiti on any infrastructure sends a message that such is tolerated. On the railroads the invitation is there. The notion even exists that if the tagger leaves the data visible the defacement is agreeable.
Kyle gets it and emphasizes a very important point. Let the terrorist follow the lead of the graffiti vandal and the nation's railways are extremely vulnerable to an attack. Security is great if its measured by how many photographers and joggers are caught. Yet, the industry continues to be outsmarted by a legion of illiterate artist entering and leaving the property at will.
Good job Kyle.
Fine. Fence in all ROWs and yards. Make watching trains/photographing them illegal. Shut down railfan websites.
Doesn't address the thousands of private sidings, but it is a start, I guess.
Fences do nothing against those who are determined to get in. Even the graffiti artist will cut holes in the fence, not to mention potential terrorist. And if railfanning is banned, then no one will watch the railroad except criminals. It is the same problem as of you ban guns. You are jut punishing the law obeying citizens. The people who already break laws obviously don't care about laws and will break them any way. Criminals will find a way to get around bans. More good, honest people watching makes the railroads safer.
Obviously - The State of Kyle
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
This discussion is an exercise in pure silliness, as usual, with our favorite troll Kyle. .
It's been fun. But it isn't much fun anymore. Signing off for now.
The opinions expressed here represent my own and not those of my employer, any other railroad, company, or person.t fun any
A automobile will not bring the same destruction as a major derailment. Not to mention many roads have alternative routes so you couldn't throw the interstate network into chaos. Derailments have the force to wipe small towns off the map. It can easily take down a bridge. And there aren't a lot of alternate routes that are way to use. Derailments also take a lot more time to clean up. And there is no easy way to protect automobiles.
gardendance Kyle, you made a rather long reply, and tried to make a chain of events leading from trespassing to disaster but I don't see where you answered my question, in what states is it legal to use deadly force to protect property? Based on your logic it should also be legal to shoot every automobile driver because of the demonstrated potential to use automobiles as bombs, yet even in war we don't shoot every automobile.
Kyle, you made a rather long reply, and tried to make a chain of events leading from trespassing to disaster but I don't see where you answered my question, in what states is it legal to use deadly force to protect property?
Based on your logic it should also be legal to shoot every automobile driver because of the demonstrated potential to use automobiles as bombs, yet even in war we don't shoot every automobile.
zugmann Kyle This is a major security problem, and it needs to be fixed. If the Railroads were smart they would reach out to the public and tell people to report suspicious activity, Railfans could "patrol" the right of ways and report anything suspicious which would cover more area than just the RR police cover, it would be like adding a bunch of guards. No one can completely protect the RR infrastructure and rolling stock, but you can minimumize risk. But how could we trust the railfans? They could be a security risk. Better stop people from railfanning, too.
Kyle This is a major security problem, and it needs to be fixed. If the Railroads were smart they would reach out to the public and tell people to report suspicious activity, Railfans could "patrol" the right of ways and report anything suspicious which would cover more area than just the RR police cover, it would be like adding a bunch of guards. No one can completely protect the RR infrastructure and rolling stock, but you can minimumize risk.
But how could we trust the railfans? They could be a security risk. Better stop people from railfanning, too.
You can't trust everyone, but as long as people are staying away from the rolling stock and tracks, they are fine. Plus there are many good people out there, so by allow people to railfan, you increase the number of good eyes out there that will notify the RR of suspicious activity or objects. Though we should not make the security like they have at airports, that is overkill for a RR.
Dave H. Painted side goes up. My website : wnbranch.com
jimnortonImagine boarding a plane covered in graffiti. Your first thought should be "where's the security?"
If airplanes were parked on remote locations for days at a time, they'd be covered with graffiti, too.
Larry Resident Microferroequinologist (at least at my house) Everyone goes home; Safety begins with you My Opinion. Standard Disclaimers Apply. No Expiration Date Come ride the rails with me! There's one thing about humility - the moment you think you've got it, you've lost it...
Nobody is asking or thinking trespassing can be stopped. The point is that graffiti conveys a lack of security. That lack of security could be the catalyst for the acts Kyle mentions.
Imagine boarding a plane covered in graffiti. Your first thought should be "where's the security?" Someday, somewhere some evil doer is going to ask the same thing about a graffiti covered rail network. Fact is as long as somebody can bring ladders, a boom box, multitudes of spray paint and even lighting to any track location in the country and not get caught......There is no security.
Rationalize that all you want.
jimnorton Kyle gets it and emphasizes a very important point. Let the terrorist follow the lead of the graffiti vandal and the nation's railways are extremely vulnerable to an attack. Security is great if its measured by how many photographers and joggers are caught. Yet, the industry continues to be outsmarted by a legion of illiterate artist entering and leaving the property at will.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.