Posted on 09/18/2013 9:37:56 AM PDT by JesseWatters
O'Reilly Factor producer Jesse Watters visited Big Sky Country this week to confront Montana District Judge G. Todd Baugh. Judge Baugh, the son of late Washington Redskins Quarterback "Slingin" Sammy Baugh, has drawn criticism over his ruling to give a convicted child rapist, Stacey Dean Rambold, a 30-day sentence. Rambold, a former Senior High School teacher, would reportedly be released sometime in October under Judge Baugh's sentence. Watters caught up to Judge Baugh at his Montana home. While questioning Judge Baugh in a doorway inside the magistrate's garage, Watters was forcefully pushed off of the raised threshold by Baugh.
(Excerpt) Read more at nation.foxnews.com ...
If it hadn’t been on the judge’s property Jesse could have had him for assault. Jesse does have brass balls to confront wrong doers as he does,
Yes, he does, and I have great respect for Jesse. It just struck me when I saw the clip that he did cross the line because it was on the “judge’s” property.
Do what liberals are supposed to do—call the cops—not take the law into their own hands!!!
Just wanted to make sure I'm not misunderstanding what you posted above. You're saying that it would be a service to society if the judge had murdered Jesse Watters?
I’m not calling to cops to push somebody away from my door on my property, I’ll do it myself, thanks. I’m not suggesting shooting the guy as others have...although they might be within their rights to do so. I expect the rule for that varies from state to state.
Look, Jesse’s a bit of a pushy guy, and he’s paid to do a good job of it. I like that he does. But he crossed the line in that video, and I think he knows it.
You are misusing the term "murdered".
If Watters was trespassing at the residence of the judge, and the judge was asking him to leave, then the idiot Watters should leave, or he has forfeit his existence.
It was unnecessarily polite of the judge to allow him to escape.
“What? Are you there near your sidewalk ready to pounce upon anybody walking their dog who may take one step off the sidewalk toward your house?”
“Trespassing on property doesn’t apply to mere boundary crossing; rather it applies to either specific intent to commit a crime or obvious potential intent to commit a crime (like theft, robbery, violence).”
“Otherwise, put up high walls & barbed wire if you don’t want strangers ringing your doorbells or package delivery men coming to your door or school kids taking a step or two on your lawn.”
Wow! You made an awful lot of assumptions from a simple statement I made.
Let me try to rephrase it for you so that there can be no mistake:
If some pseudo-reporter/shark/barracuda has his foot on my threshold and I do not want his foot to be there or if I do not want him there.....he might lose his foot or more. Is that better? ;-)
In addition, I live in Texas. Apparently you do not live in Texas and are not familiar with Texas law. Texas law says that if you are on my property, you belong to me! That is why we can shoot someone who is running away from the house but still on the property.
I do not have a sidewalk. None of the people on this block have a sidewalk on this side of the street.
“Think about it this way though, this man HAS to answer to people that elected him.”
Agreed. Did that reporter vote for him? Maybe you have never been accosted by a pushy, so-called ‘reporter’. They are the most repulsive people on the planet and will readily violate your privacy and all of the other 1st amendment rights.
I watched the video. The judge could have turned and shot the invader the moment he entered the garage, justifiably. When he attempted to stop the judge from closing the door to the living part of the home, that was definitely a spot where any degree of force would have been justifiable.
Castle Doctrine
Montana has a castle law with a “stand-your-ground” clause. Under the law, the use of deadly force is permissible to prevent felonies from being committed in one’s home or to protect against assault within one’s home.
The statute reads:
45-3-103. Use of force in defense of occupied structure. (1) A person is justified in the use of force or threat to use force against another when and to the extent that the person reasonably believes that the use of force is necessary to prevent or terminate the other person's unlawful entry into or attack upon an occupied structure.
(2) A person justified in the use of force pursuant to subsection (1) is justified in the use of force likely to cause death or serious bodily harm only if:
(a) the entry is made or attempted and the person reasonably believes that the force is necessary to prevent an assault upon the person or another then in the occupied structure; or
(b) the person reasonably believes that the force is necessary to prevent the commission of a forcible felony in the occupied structure.
The bolded part of (1) explains the justifiable response I stated. The judge is probably familiar with this legislation.
The only possible reason(s) the news puke was not shot are:
(1) The judge was not armed,
(2) He probably knew that any local jury would already be prejudiced against him, or
(3) He just did not feel like killing a worthless home invader at that particular time.
The sad fact that news pukes (with or without a camera) are not routinely terminated for violating the rights of citizens does not mean that they are undeserving.
Clearly in this case, the news puke unlawfully entered the garage (which is part of that occupied structure), and furthermore attempted to prevent the lawful occupant from closing the interior door.
The occupant would have been fully justified to retrieve a firearm, return to the garage, and justifiably exterminate the news puke and cameraman in the garage, with extreme prejudice.
While that may be true, we can clearly see that “the lines” for so many topics are shifting wildly anymore, far more than I know I grew up with. If he crossed the line, the judge can hold him accountable, and should. We will wait and see. If not, he waived that right.
Bingo! Someone with sense.
Bull crap!! If the judge KNEW that Jesse was not a reporter, but operating alone, no cameras, no other people around, then MAYBE, MAYBE he could use deadly force, but based on a totality of the circumstances in this case, the judge would be behind bars for using deadly force.
Where, in any body of law, are these exemptions for journalists to violate the rights of citizens with impunity? They do not exist.
Like I said, it’s the totality of the circumstances. Would you expect to receive deadly bodily harm from a reporting crew? The answer is a definite NO! Then be very careful about using deadly harm back.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.