[tpaine]

Luis insists, as did Watson:

"-- You have absolutely no right to be on someone else's property without their permission. --"

And if permission is absolutely refused -- Watson [and Luis?] claimed the 'right' to shoot the trespasser.

Thanks luis, you've made my point.

[Luis Gonzalez]

I have yet to comment on this incident, the reason being that there is not enough information on the article to make a determination.

Having said that, if you stand at the edge of my property and I warn you that I will shoot you if you enter it, you entering my property gives me cause to defend myself.

Isn't defending yourself the reason why you want a gun in your car?

If you can't use it when you feel that your life or property are in danger, then what the hell do you want the gun for?

[Luis Gonzalez]

There has never been a time when I have not recognized the State's rights to pass laws that impact property rights...I've already stated that position clearly on this thread. Assessments are one of those instances where the law clearly defines the government's right to enter your property without a Court order. This is not you and I have been discussing, so quit throwing red herrings into the debate.

You and I are discussing two private citizens interacting on a piece of privately owned land. Not a private citizens ans a representative of the government interacting over an easement.

[UpAllNight]

--Thanks luis, you've made my point.--

Uh no. The county had LEGAL permission to be on the easement. The nutcase was trying to illegally revoke their right by denying them access.