On Jun 18, 10:16�pm, "cshenk" wrote:
"HeyBub" wrote

cshenk wrote:

In my area for example, folks selling are advised to 'not disclose'
as you can't be sued later for anything that comes up. �If you do
'disclose' you can be sued even years later for just about anything
even if you can prove you did NOT know about it (obviously hard to
prove such, and wont save you here).

Are you sure about that? I would think it would be the reverse: Disclosure
immunizes you from being sued in that the buyer knew what he was getting.
Non-disclosure allows the buyer to presume nothing abnormal about the
property.

Nope, as explained to me thats how it works 'here'. �If you say you
'disclose' here, you are liable for anything and everything, even stuff you
didnt know about.

It's bad as partial disclosure would be better (if allowed).

in pennsylvania failure to disclose a deficency you know about makes
you liable after sale for the entire cost to fix whatever fails.

like the neighbor who sold a 100,000 home failed to disclose the main
sewer was bad.

new owner found previous plumber visits...... could prove deficency

cost old owner over 10 grand for new sewer, driveway, wall, entire
replacement and restoration.........

a very expensive lesson

richard wrote:

What does the 'code of the west' say about shooting two men in the
back?



Even more so, unarmed.
Even the wild west law saw that as murder.

I see you're posting moved through the servers at the University of
Maryland - hardly a repository of "code of the west" knowledge.
Nevertheless, assuming you are trying to increase your store of wild west
lore, let me disabuse you of what you hope to be the case:

Here's one example:

"Texas Penal Code 9.42 DEADLY FORCE TO PROTECT PROPERTY"

"A person is justified in using deadly force against another to protect land
or tangible, moveable property:
(2) when and to the degree he reasonably believes the deadly force is
immediately necessary:
(A) to prevent the other's imminent commission of arson, burglary,
robbery, aggravated robbery, theft during the nighttime, or criminal
mischief during the nighttime, or
(B) to prevent the other who is fleeing immediately after committing
burglary, robbery..., and
(3) he reasonably believes that
(A) the land or property cannot be protected or recovered by any other
means, or
(B) the use of force other than deadly force to protect or recover the
land or property would expose the actor to... risk of death or serious
bodily injury."

In the Joe Horn case, the two goblins had just committed a burglary and were
fleeing, thereby fulfilling (2)(B) above. Joe is in his 60's and the two
squints were young, strapping males. Even if Joe could catch them in a foot
race, and even if they were unarmed (the weren't - they had pry-bars and
other burglar tools) the chance of death or serious bodily injury is a
reasonable expectation, thereby meeting the requirements of (3)(B).

So, Joe simply sicced old double-barreled Betsy on their asses.

I'm sure Joe didn't have a Texas Penal Code checklist on hand so he could
mark off the nuanced requirements of the law.

He simply saw his duty and he did it.

On Jun 18, 9:09*pm, Norminn wrote:

When do you get out? *Going to halfway house first?


Just asking as the result of a debate elsewhere.

Btw, since when do prisoners in penitentiaries have access to the
internet?

On Jun 18, 8:32*am, richard wrote:

Since it so happens it is 10 years since the Columbine shooting, I
believe you are referring to this case?


No, this was a different school shooting. The killers at Columbine
both killed themselves as their final act. Kinkel apparently had also
planned to kill himself but was subdued by classmates before he
finished his rampage.

On Jun 18, 10:52*am, richard wrote:

And the perv could have filed assault and battery charges as well have
sued in civil court and won.


Unless the jury prefers to believe the word of four guys who all
testify that the molester attacked the father and they just helped.

I suspect the child molester didn't want to risk going back to jail.

However, if they'd simply pressed charges they likely could have sent
Chester the Molester back to jail, instead of moving elsewhere to
continue offending against someone else's child.

wrote:
On Jun 18, 9:09 pm, Norminn wrote:

When do you get out? Going to halfway house first?


Just asking as the result of a debate elsewhere.

Btw, since when do prisoners in penitentiaries have access to the
internet?

Many do.

Who do you think enters the information you supply when applying for a
credit card?

On Jun 19, 4:59�pm, "HeyBub" wrote:
wrote:
On Jun 18, 9:09 pm, Norminn wrote:

When do you get out? Going to halfway house first?

Just asking as the result of a debate elsewhere.

Btw, since when do prisoners in penitentiaries have access to the
internet?

Many do.

Who do you think enters the information you supply when applying for a
credit card?

seriously in new jersey prisoners answer the phone when you call
looking for info to vacation in the state.

no doubt the prisoners would love to be anywhere else

In article ,
says...
wrote
richard wrote

Would you even be able to give away any of the nearby houses once it
became common knowledge? Or, if a realtor made efforts to conceal this
fact when selling a neighboring house, do the buyers have any recourse?

So you're a card carrying member of NIMBY huh?

Of course my scenario was hypothetical, but are you saying you'd be fine
with it if you for example had small kids and found out you just bought a
house next to someone who'd done a stretch for pedophilia related crimes?

No, but thats the reason few places allow that sort of thing to be
publicised, where those who have been convicted are currently 'living'

Huh? Most places have laws specifically addressing pedophiles and
other sex criminals (whether they should and how it's run is another
issue). Many have web sites where you can look up the names and
addresses of those convicted of sex crimes and search for any in
your neighborhood. Criminal records are public information.

Or someone famous for having murdered a bunch of
people at some point because "the voices" told him to?

Why would it be any better if they had murdered just one ?

Serial murderers are the same as those who have committed "crimes of
passion"?

The only alternative is to keep all those with mental problems locked up till they die.

Well...

Even if you did find out, there is no legal recourse you can take to force him to move elsewhere.

I was thinking of recourse against the realtor and/or seller for not disclosing the information.

If there was, they'd just avoid becoming aware of the information deliberately.

As it is with many such things. Then there is "should have
known"...


--
Keith

In article ,
says...
thedarkonelives wrote

I was thinking of recourse against the realtor and/or seller for not
disclosing the information.

Laws may not *allow* the relator to disclose such even if they are aware of
it. The home owner may or may not be required to disclose such, rather area
dependant on disclosure laws.

Nonsense. It *is* public information.

In my area for example, folks selling are advised to 'not disclose' as you
can't be sued later for anything that comes up. If you do 'disclose' you
can be sued even years later for just about anything even if you can prove
you did NOT know about it (obviously hard to prove such, and wont save you
here).

You certainly do live in a strange world. We had a lengthy
disclosure form to fill out that went through the entire house. I
looked at it as a good thing. As long as I answered the questions
honestly there was nothing to come back after me for, though that
wouldn't stop an ambulance chaser.

'Technically' my house was bought 'non-disclosed' but folks have a way here
of working out basic stuff 'off the record'. Seller for example quietly
warned us that with a house built in 1963, it was largely code-spec to 1963
and that future work, depending on what it was, would sometimes entail
additional costs. He was real careful to explain the back room was codespec
only to 'enclosed porch' for example and now we understand why ;-). Reality
is at the time it was a rental bedroom for a roomate, bed and all. It's a
'legal thing' to call my home a 3BR 1.5 bath, vice a 4 BR 1.5 bath. Had he
tried to market it as a 4 BR officially, he would have been required to pay
to bring that encloser to codespec of the time for a BR.

My house had a building permit and CO as a two bedroom[*] house,
even though there were clearly three. Before I could even put it on
the market I had to get the permit and CO "upgraded" to three
bedrooms. It cost me $3500, for nothing but paper and five minutes
of the town clerk's time.
[*] who in their right mind would build (or allow to be built) a two
bedroom 2-1/2 bath house?

--
Keith

wrote

in pennsylvania failure to disclose a deficency you know about makes
you liable after sale for the entire cost to fix whatever fails.

Interesting! I wouldnt mind that. I thought the rules here as explained to
me by the realtors sounded 'wierd'.

like the neighbor who sold a 100,000 home failed to disclose the main
sewer was bad.
new owner found previous plumber visits...... could prove deficency
cost old owner over 10 grand for new sewer, driveway, wall, entire
replacement and restoration.........

a very expensive lesson

Wince! Yes, it would be.

"krw" wrote
Laws may not *allow* the realtor to disclose such even if they are aware
of
it. The home owner may or may not be required to disclose such, rather
area
dependant on disclosure laws.

Nonsense. It *is* public information.

I never said it wasn't. What your area (state) requires may match another
or may not be the same. I advised to look up the laws for the area
involved. Normally pretty easy to find.

In my area for example, folks selling are advised to 'not disclose' as
you
can't be sued later for anything that comes up. If you do 'disclose' you
can be sued even years later for just about anything even if you can
prove
you did NOT know about it (obviously hard to prove such, and wont save
you
here).

You certainly do live in a strange world. We had a lengthy
disclosure form to fill out that went through the entire house. I
looked at it as a good thing. As long as I answered the questions
honestly there was nothing to come back after me for, though that
wouldn't stop an ambulance chaser.

Just wierd to me, but got same info from several realtors. I do not live in
a 'must disclose' state.

'Technically' my house was bought 'non-disclosed' but folks have a way
here
of working out basic stuff 'off the record'. Seller for example quietly
warned us that with a house built in 1963, it was largely code-spec to
1963
and that future work, depending on what it was, would sometimes entail
additional costs. He was real careful to explain the back room was
codespec
only to 'enclosed porch' for example and now we understand why ;-).
Reality
is at the time it was a rental bedroom for a roomate, bed and all. It's
a
'legal thing' to call my home a 3BR 1.5 bath, vice a 4 BR 1.5 bath. Had
he
tried to market it as a 4 BR officially, he would have been required to
pay
to bring that enclosure to codespec of the time for a BR.

My house had a building permit and CO as a two bedroom[*] house,
even though there were clearly three. Before I could even put it on
the market I had to get the permit and CO "upgraded" to three
bedrooms. It cost me $3500, for nothing but paper and five minutes
of the town clerk's time.

I'm not sure what the costs would have been in 1995 to bring it up to code,
only an estimate in 2007 that was very open ended as in 'we expect to find
more'. Of what I can recall besides the roof having to go up was the slab
had to be raised to level to the rest of the house (it's a 1.5 inch or so
drop). I thought that one very odd indeed. They seemed quite happy to make
it with no windows but spec'd out that if it had a window it had to be a
certain size... (The room has 2 doors so the window apparently isnt
required but i already have one bedroom with no windows and 2 doors).

[*] who in their right mind would build (or allow to be built) a two
bedroom 2-1/2 bath house?

Grin, does sound odd!

krw wrote
Rod Speed wrote
wrote
richard wrote

Would you even be able to give away any of the nearby houses once
it became common knowledge? Or, if a realtor made efforts to
conceal this fact when selling a neighboring house, do the buyers
have any recourse?

So you're a card carrying member of NIMBY huh?

Of course my scenario was hypothetical, but are you saying you'd be fine
with it if you for example had small kids and found out you just bought a
house next to someone who'd done a stretch for pedophilia related crimes?

No, but thats the reason few places allow that sort of thing to be
publicised, where those who have been convicted are currently 'living'

Huh? Most places have laws specifically addressing pedophiles and
other sex criminals (whether they should and how it's run is another issue).

Few places allow where those are currently 'living' to be publicised to anyone who wants to know.

Many have web sites where you can look up the names and addresses
of those convicted of sex crimes and search for any in your neighborhood.

**** all do, actually.

Criminal records are public information.

But not the current location of criminals who are no longer in jail.

Or someone famous for having murdered a bunch of
people at some point because "the voices" told him to?

Why would it be any better if they had murdered just one ?

Serial murderers are the same as those who have committed "crimes of passion"?

Irrelevant to what risk you run from either sort of criminal.

The only alternative is to keep all those with mental problems locked up till they die.

Well...

Pathetic.

Even if you did find out, there is no legal recourse you can take to force him to move elsewhere.

I was thinking of recourse against the realtor and/or seller for not disclosing the information.

If there was, they'd just avoid becoming aware of the information deliberately.

As it is with many such things. Then there is "should have known"...

Nope. Not with something like that that isnt common knowledge.

krw wrote
wrote
thedarkonelives wrote

I was thinking of recourse against the realtor and/or seller for not disclosing the information.

Laws may not *allow* the relator to disclose such even if they
are aware of it. The home owner may or may not be required
to disclose such, rather area dependant on disclosure laws.

Nonsense.

Your sig is supposed to be at the bottom, with a line with just -- on a line by itself in front of it.

It *is* public information.

The current location of an ex prisoner isnt.

In my area for example, folks selling are advised to 'not disclose'
as you can't be sued later for anything that comes up. If you do
'disclose' you can be sued even years later for just about anything
even if you can prove you did NOT know about it (obviously hard
to prove such, and wont save you here).

You certainly do live in a strange world. We had a lengthy
disclosure form to fill out that went through the entire house.

But which didnt include anything about the neighbours.

I looked at it as a good thing. As long as I answered the
questions honestly there was nothing to come back after
me for, though that wouldn't stop an ambulance chaser.

So it was in fact completely useless.

'Technically' my house was bought 'non-disclosed' but folks have
a way here of working out basic stuff 'off the record'. Seller for
example quietly warned us that with a house built in 1963, it was
largely code-spec to 1963 and that future work, depending on what
it was, would sometimes entail additional costs. He was real careful
to explain the back room was codespec only to 'enclosed porch' for
example and now we understand why ;-). Reality is at the time it
was a rental bedroom for a roomate, bed and all. It's a 'legal
thing' to call my home a 3BR 1.5 bath, vice a 4 BR 1.5 bath. Had he
tried to market it as a 4 BR officially, he would have been required
to pay to bring that encloser to codespec of the time for a BR.

My house had a building permit and CO as a two bedroom[*] house,
even though there were clearly three. Before I could even put it on the
market I had to get the permit and CO "upgraded" to three bedrooms. It
cost me $3500, for nothing but paper and five minutes of the town clerk's time.

Your problem.

[*] who in their right mind would build (or allow to be built) a two bedroom 2-1/2 bath house?

Those who arent stupid enough to spend more on more house when they dont need that.

krw wrote:

Or someone famous for having murdered a bunch of
people at some point because "the voices" told him to?

Why would it be any better if they had murdered just one ?

Serial murderers are the same as those who have committed "crimes of
passion"?


Well, no. If you ever drive past a prison, you'll probably see "outside
trustys" mowing the grass, etc. Virtually all of the outside trustys are
murderers, crime of passion murderers. You see, they are basically
rule-followers; tell 'em to go outside and sweep the sidewalks, be back at
4:30, and they'll be back. Theirs was a crime of unique opportunity, they
didn't plan it. They just got swept up in the heat of the moment.

A robber or burglar or contract killer, on the other hand, has no respect
for the rules or law. Put them outside the wall and they'll bolt. Every
time.

So, with a crime-of-passion criminal, if you can put him in a situation
where the same circumstances to not repeat, he'll be fine.

Larry wrote
Rod Speed wrote
krw wrote
Rod Speed wrote
wrote
richard wrote

Would you even be able to give away any of the nearby houses
once it became common knowledge? Or, if a realtor made efforts
to conceal this fact when selling a neighboring house, do the
buyers have any recourse?

So you're a card carrying member of NIMBY huh?

Of course my scenario was hypothetical, but are you saying you'd
be fine with it if you for example had small kids and found out
you just bought a house next to someone who'd done a stretch for
pedophilia related crimes?

No, but thats the reason few places allow that sort of thing to be
publicised, where those who have been convicted are currently 'living'

Huh? Most places have laws specifically addressing pedophiles and other
sex criminals (whether they should and how it's run is another issue).

Few places allow where those are currently 'living' to be publicised
to anyone who wants to know.

Many have web sites where you can look up the names and addresses of
those convicted of sex crimes and search for any in your neighborhood.

**** all do, actually.

Well, that's where they're currently living, isn't it?

Irrelevant to what can be looked up on web sites.

Criminal records are public information.

But not the current location of criminals who are no longer in jail.

Or someone famous for having murdered a bunch of
people at some point because "the voices" told him to?

Why would it be any better if they had murdered just one ?

Serial murderers are the same as those who have committed "crimes of passion"?

Irrelevant to what risk you run from either sort of criminal.

It's entirely relevant!

Easy to claim, hell of a lot harder to actually substantiate that claim.

A serial killer

It wasnt serial killers being discussed, it was those who kill a number of people at once.

is much more likely to reoffend than a guy who killed his
wife's lover after walking in on them in bed together.

Irrelevant to whether someone who has killed more than one in a single
event is more of a risk to you than someone who has just killed one.

This is just plain common sense.

Pity it wasnt what was actually being discussed.

The only alternative is to keep all those with mental problems locked up till they die.

Well...

Pathetic.

Another alternative is that they could come live with you.

Or you could be incarcerated with them, as you deserve to be, parasite.

Even if you did find out, there is no legal recourse
you can take to force him to move elsewhere.

I was thinking of recourse against the realtor and/or seller for not disclosing the information.

If there was, they'd just avoid becoming aware of the information deliberately.

As it is with many such things. Then there is "should have known"...

Nope. Not with something like that that isnt common knowledge.

In article ,
says...
krw wrote
Rod Speed wrote
wrote
richard wrote

Would you even be able to give away any of the nearby houses once
it became common knowledge? Or, if a realtor made efforts to
conceal this fact when selling a neighboring house, do the buyers
have any recourse?

So you're a card carrying member of NIMBY huh?

Of course my scenario was hypothetical, but are you saying you'd be fine
with it if you for example had small kids and found out you just bought a
house next to someone who'd done a stretch for pedophilia related crimes?

No, but thats the reason few places allow that sort of thing to be
publicised, where those who have been convicted are currently 'living'

Huh? Most places have laws specifically addressing pedophiles and
other sex criminals (whether they should and how it's run is another issue).

Few places allow where those are currently 'living' to be publicised to anyone who wants to know.

Wrong again, Ron. Court records (criminal) are public information,
just as the proceedings are public.

Many have web sites where you can look up the names and addresses
of those convicted of sex crimes and search for any in your neighborhood.

**** all do, actually.

Only if it resulted in a criminal conviction and it doesn't require
anything worse than a panty-raid or similar college prank to be
placed on such a list.

Criminal records are public information.

But not the current location of criminals who are no longer in jail.

Wrong again, Ron. They certainly *are* available for those
convicted of "sex crimes".

Or someone famous for having murdered a bunch of
people at some point because "the voices" told him to?

Why would it be any better if they had murdered just one ?

Serial murderers are the same as those who have committed "crimes of passion"?

Irrelevant to what risk you run from either sort of criminal.

Bull****. There is a big difference between those who have murdered
their spouse for example, and Jeffery Dahmer.

The only alternative is to keep all those with mental problems locked up till they die.

Well...

Pathetic.

They are and should never see light again (nor another meal, but
that's a different issue).

Even if you did find out, there is no legal recourse you can take to force him to move elsewhere.

I was thinking of recourse against the realtor and/or seller for not disclosing the information.

If there was, they'd just avoid becoming aware of the information deliberately.

As it is with many such things. Then there is "should have known"...

Nope. Not with something like that that isnt common knowledge.

Wrong again, Ron. I must say, you are consistent.

--
Keith

In article ,
says...
"krw" wrote
Laws may not *allow* the realtor to disclose such even if they are aware
of
it. The home owner may or may not be required to disclose such, rather
area
dependant on disclosure laws.

Nonsense. It *is* public information.

I never said it wasn't. What your area (state) requires may match another
or may not be the same. I advised to look up the laws for the area
involved. Normally pretty easy to find.


You did when you said, "Laws may not *allow* the Realtor to
disclose...". It is perfectly legal to "disclose" public
information.

In my area for example, folks selling are advised to 'not disclose' as
you
can't be sued later for anything that comes up. If you do 'disclose' you
can be sued even years later for just about anything even if you can
prove
you did NOT know about it (obviously hard to prove such, and wont save
you
here).

You certainly do live in a strange world. We had a lengthy
disclosure form to fill out that went through the entire house. I
looked at it as a good thing. As long as I answered the questions
honestly there was nothing to come back after me for, though that
wouldn't stop an ambulance chaser.

Just wierd to me, but got same info from several realtors. I do not live in
a 'must disclose' state.

It is *not* uncommon. I've had to do it twice now, in different
states. The last one was *very* strict. Agents get sued for non-
disclosure all the time, even though there was no way they *could*
have known. ...even if the homeowner obviously did, the agent gets
sued (deep pockets).

'Technically' my house was bought 'non-disclosed' but folks have a way
here
of working out basic stuff 'off the record'. Seller for example quietly
warned us that with a house built in 1963, it was largely code-spec to
1963
and that future work, depending on what it was, would sometimes entail
additional costs. He was real careful to explain the back room was
codespec
only to 'enclosed porch' for example and now we understand why ;-).
Reality
is at the time it was a rental bedroom for a roomate, bed and all. It's
a
'legal thing' to call my home a 3BR 1.5 bath, vice a 4 BR 1.5 bath. Had
he
tried to market it as a 4 BR officially, he would have been required to
pay
to bring that enclosure to codespec of the time for a BR.

My house had a building permit and CO as a two bedroom[*] house,
even though there were clearly three. Before I could even put it on
the market I had to get the permit and CO "upgraded" to three
bedrooms. It cost me $3500, for nothing but paper and five minutes
of the town clerk's time.

I'm not sure what the costs would have been in 1995 to bring it up to code,
only an estimate in 2007 that was very open ended as in 'we expect to find
more'. Of what I can recall besides the roof having to go up was the slab
had to be raised to level to the rest of the house (it's a 1.5 inch or so
drop). I thought that one very odd indeed. They seemed quite happy to make
it with no windows but spec'd out that if it had a window it had to be a
certain size... (The room has 2 doors so the window apparently isnt
required but i already have one bedroom with no windows and 2 doors).

[*] who in their right mind would build (or allow to be built) a two
bedroom 2-1/2 bath house?

Grin, does sound odd!

I didn't grin at the $3500 - for nothing.

--
Keith

In article ,
says...
krw wrote
wrote
thedarkonelives wrote

I was thinking of recourse against the realtor and/or seller for not disclosing the information.

Laws may not *allow* the relator to disclose such even if they
are aware of it. The home owner may or may not be required
to disclose such, rather area dependant on disclosure laws.

Nonsense.

Your sig is supposed to be at the bottom, with a line with just -- on a line by itself in front of it.

It *is* public information.

The current location of an ex prisoner isnt.

You ****ing idiot, it *IS* public knowledge in many states and web
searchable for those convicted of "sex crimes", whether the crime is
kiddie porn, child rape, or a college hazing prank.

In my area for example, folks selling are advised to 'not disclose'
as you can't be sued later for anything that comes up. If you do
'disclose' you can be sued even years later for just about anything
even if you can prove you did NOT know about it (obviously hard
to prove such, and wont save you here).

You certainly do live in a strange world. We had a lengthy
disclosure form to fill out that went through the entire house.

But which didnt include anything about the neighbours.

Do try to keep up, Ronnie.

I looked at it as a good thing. As long as I answered the
questions honestly there was nothing to come back after
me for, though that wouldn't stop an ambulance chaser.

So it was in fact completely useless.

So, in fact you are as stupid as you pretend on the Usenet. I still
*had* to disclose, but could describe exactly the circumstances.

'Technically' my house was bought 'non-disclosed' but folks have
a way here of working out basic stuff 'off the record'. Seller for
example quietly warned us that with a house built in 1963, it was
largely code-spec to 1963 and that future work, depending on what
it was, would sometimes entail additional costs. He was real careful
to explain the back room was codespec only to 'enclosed porch' for
example and now we understand why ;-). Reality is at the time it
was a rental bedroom for a roomate, bed and all. It's a 'legal
thing' to call my home a 3BR 1.5 bath, vice a 4 BR 1.5 bath. Had he
tried to market it as a 4 BR officially, he would have been required
to pay to bring that encloser to codespec of the time for a BR.

My house had a building permit and CO as a two bedroom[*] house,
even though there were clearly three. Before I could even put it on the
market I had to get the permit and CO "upgraded" to three bedrooms. It
cost me $3500, for nothing but paper and five minutes of the town clerk's time.

Your problem.

Obviously, you stupid ass!

[*] who in their right mind would build (or allow to be built) a two bedroom 2-1/2 bath house?

Those who arent stupid enough to spend more on more house when they dont need that.

You certainly are a dumb ****!

--
Keith

In article -
sjc.supernews.net, says...
In article ,
krw wrote:

In article ,
says...
krw wrote
Rod Speed wrote
wrote
richard wrote

Would you even be able to give away any of the nearby houses once
it became common knowledge? Or, if a realtor made efforts to
conceal this fact when selling a neighboring house, do the buyers
have any recourse?

So you're a card carrying member of NIMBY huh?

Of course my scenario was hypothetical, but are you saying you'd be
fine
with it if you for example had small kids and found out you just bought
a
house next to someone who'd done a stretch for pedophilia related
crimes?

No, but thats the reason few places allow that sort of thing to be
publicised, where those who have been convicted are currently 'living'

Huh? Most places have laws specifically addressing pedophiles and
other sex criminals (whether they should and how it's run is another
issue).

Few places allow where those are currently 'living' to be publicised to
anyone who wants to know.

Wrong again, Ron. Court records (criminal) are public information,
just as the proceedings are public.

Many have web sites where you can look up the names and addresses
of those convicted of sex crimes and search for any in your neighborhood.

**** all do, actually.

Only if it resulted in a criminal conviction and it doesn't require
anything worse than a panty-raid or similar college prank to be
placed on such a list.

Criminal records are public information.

But not the current location of criminals who are no longer in jail.

Wrong again, Ron. They certainly *are* available for those
convicted of "sex crimes".

Or someone famous for having murdered a bunch of
people at some point because "the voices" told him to?

Why would it be any better if they had murdered just one ?

Serial murderers are the same as those who have committed "crimes of
passion"?

Irrelevant to what risk you run from either sort of criminal.

Bull****. There is a big difference between those who have murdered
their spouse for example, and Jeffery Dahmer.

The only alternative is to keep all those with mental problems locked up
till they die.

Well...

Pathetic.

They are and should never see light again (nor another meal, but
that's a different issue).

Even if you did find out, there is no legal recourse you can take to
force him to move elsewhere.

I was thinking of recourse against the realtor and/or seller for not
disclosing the information.

If there was, they'd just avoid becoming aware of the information
deliberately.

As it is with many such things. Then there is "should have known"...

Nope. Not with something like that that isnt common knowledge.

Wrong again, Ron. I must say, you are consistent.

He really is obtuse, isn't he?

I must say, he is consistent. ;-)

--
Keith

In article -
sjc.supernews.net, says...
In article ,
"Rod Speed" wrote:

Larry wrote
Rod Speed wrote
krw wrote
Rod Speed wrote
wrote
richard wrote

Would you even be able to give away any of the nearby houses
once it became common knowledge? Or, if a realtor made efforts
to conceal this fact when selling a neighboring house, do the
buyers have any recourse?

So you're a card carrying member of NIMBY huh?

Of course my scenario was hypothetical, but are you saying you'd
be fine with it if you for example had small kids and found out
you just bought a house next to someone who'd done a stretch for
pedophilia related crimes?

No, but thats the reason few places allow that sort of thing to be
publicised, where those who have been convicted are currently 'living'

Huh? Most places have laws specifically addressing pedophiles and other
sex criminals (whether they should and how it's run is another issue).

Few places allow where those are currently 'living' to be publicised
to anyone who wants to know.

Many have web sites where you can look up the names and addresses of
those convicted of sex crimes and search for any in your neighborhood.

**** all do, actually.

Well, that's where they're currently living, isn't it?

Irrelevant to what can be looked up on web sites.

How is looking up where they're currently living on a web site
irrelevant to determining where they currently live?



Criminal records are public information.

But not the current location of criminals who are no longer in jail.

Or someone famous for having murdered a bunch of
people at some point because "the voices" told him to?

Why would it be any better if they had murdered just one ?

Serial murderers are the same as those who have committed "crimes of
passion"?

Irrelevant to what risk you run from either sort of criminal.

It's entirely relevant!

Easy to claim, hell of a lot harder to actually substantiate that claim.

Ahh, your favorite line. In other words, you're conceding.

A serial killer

It wasnt serial killers being discussed, it was those who kill a number of
people at once.

Above someone used the phrase "serial murderers." I used "serial
killers." You're so blinded by your need to pick a fight that you move
the goalposts just to do it, don't you?

He puts wheels on the damned things.

is much more likely to reoffend than a guy who killed his
wife's lover after walking in on them in bed together.

Irrelevant to whether someone who has killed more than one in a single
event is more of a risk to you than someone who has just killed one.

You obviously know very little about recidivism and the sociological
aspect of criminology.

He knows at least as much about it as any other subject he talks
about.

This is just plain common sense.

Pity it wasnt what was actually being discussed.

Just because you weren't discussing it - or more precisely, you can't
follow such a discussion - does not mean it wasn't being discussed.

Just more moving of the goal posts.

The only alternative is to keep all those with mental problems locked up
till they die.

Well...

Pathetic.

Another alternative is that they could come live with you.

Or you could be incarcerated with them, as you deserve to be, parasite.

This should be a laugh - why do I "deserve" to be incarcerated, fool?
Because I've repeatedly shown you up?

Well, you did murder his argument with the facts (a deadly weapon,
if ever there were one). That makes you a criminal in Ronnie's
microscopic mind.

--
Keith

Larry wrote
Rod Speed wrote
Larry wrote
Rod Speed wrote
krw wrote
Rod Speed wrote
wrote
richard wrote

Would you even be able to give away any of the nearby
houses once it became common knowledge? Or, if a
realtor made efforts to conceal this fact when selling
a neighboring house, do the buyers have any recourse?

So you're a card carrying member of NIMBY huh?

Of course my scenario was hypothetical, but are you saying you'd
be fine with it if you for example had small kids and found out
you just bought a house next to someone who'd done a stretch for
pedophilia related crimes?

No, but thats the reason few places allow that sort of thing to be
publicised, where those who have been convicted are currently 'living'

Huh? Most places have laws specifically addressing pedophiles and other
sex criminals (whether they should and how it's run is another issue).

Few places allow where those are currently 'living'
to be publicised to anyone who wants to know.

Many have web sites where you can look up the names and addresses
of those convicted of sex crimes and search for any in your neighborhood.

**** all do, actually.

Well, that's where they're currently living, isn't it?

Irrelevant to what can be looked up on web sites.

How is looking up where they're currently living on a web
site irrelevant to determining where they currently live?

Never ever said anything even remotely resembling anything like that.

Criminal records are public information.

But not the current location of criminals who are no longer in jail.

Or someone famous for having murdered a bunch of
people at some point because "the voices" told him to?

Why would it be any better if they had murdered just one ?

Serial murderers are the same as those who have committed "crimes of passion"?

Irrelevant to what risk you run from either sort of criminal.

It's entirely relevant!

Easy to claim, hell of a lot harder to actually substantiate that claim.

Ahh, your favorite line.

Wrong, as always.

In other words, you're conceding.

Only in your pathetic little drug crazed parasite fantasyland.

A serial killer

It wasnt serial killers being discussed, it was those who kill a number of people at once.

Above someone used the phrase "serial murderers."

Pity that wasnt what was being discussed.

I used "serial killers."

Pity that wasnt what was being discussed.

You're so blinded by your need to pick a fight

Corse you never ever do anything like that yourself, eh parasite ?

that you move the goalposts just to do it, don't you?

I wasnt the one heading off on a completely irrelevancy to what was being discussed, ****wit.

No wonder the best you have ever been able to manage is parasite.

is much more likely to reoffend than a guy who killed
his wife's lover after walking in on them in bed together.

Irrelevant to whether someone who has killed more than one in a single
event is more of a risk to you than someone who has just killed one.

You obviously know very little about recidivism and the sociological aspect of criminology.

You've got your dick in your hand, as always.

This is just plain common sense.

Pity it wasnt what was actually being discussed.

Just because you weren't discussing it

Nope, because thats what the OP wasnt discussing, ****wit.

- or more precisely, you can't follow such a discussion

I followed what the OP was discussing fine, thanks.

- does not mean it wasn't being discussed.

I just pointed out that serial murderers were irrelevant to what was being discussed, ****wit.

You made a VERY spectacular fool of yourself when you were actually stupid
enough to claim that serial murderers are relevant to what was actually being
discussed and are now desperately attempting to bull**** your way out of
your predicament and are fooling absolutely no one at all, as always.

The only alternative is to keep all those with mental problems locked up till they die.

Well...

Pathetic.

Another alternative is that they could come live with you.

Or you could be incarcerated with them, as you deserve to be, parasite.

This should be a laugh

We'll see...

- why do I "deserve" to be incarcerated, fool?

Because you cant bull**** your way out of a wet paper bag, ****wit.

Because I've repeatedly shown you up?

Only in your pathetic little drug crazed parasite fantasyland.

On Thu, 19 Jun 2008 09:34:18 -0500, "HeyBub"
wrote:

richard wrote:

What does the 'code of the west' say about shooting two men in the
back?



Even more so, unarmed.
Even the wild west law saw that as murder.

I see you're posting moved through the servers at the University of
Maryland - hardly a repository of "code of the west" knowledge.
Nevertheless, assuming you are trying to increase your store of wild west
lore, let me disabuse you of what you hope to be the case:

Here's one example:

"Texas Penal Code 9.42 DEADLY FORCE TO PROTECT PROPERTY"

"A person is justified in using deadly force against another to protect land
or tangible, moveable property:
(2) when and to the degree he reasonably believes the deadly force is
immediately necessary:
(A) to prevent the other's imminent commission of arson, burglary,
robbery, aggravated robbery, theft during the nighttime, or criminal
mischief during the nighttime, or
(B) to prevent the other who is fleeing immediately after committing
burglary, robbery..., and
(3) he reasonably believes that
(A) the land or property cannot be protected or recovered by any other
means, or
(B) the use of force other than deadly force to protect or recover the
land or property would expose the actor to... risk of death or serious
bodily injury."

In the Joe Horn case, the two goblins had just committed a burglary and were
fleeing, thereby fulfilling (2)(B) above. Joe is in his 60's and the two
squints were young, strapping males. Even if Joe could catch them in a foot
race, and even if they were unarmed (the weren't - they had pry-bars and
other burglar tools) the chance of death or serious bodily injury is a
reasonable expectation, thereby meeting the requirements of (3)(B).

So, Joe simply sicced old double-barreled Betsy on their asses.

I'm sure Joe didn't have a Texas Penal Code checklist on hand so he could
mark off the nuanced requirements of the law.

He simply saw his duty and he did it.



All true, except for a couple of things.
Joe Horn failed to comply with a directive from the police department.
"Do not go outside."
The 911 person said this how many times? 3? And Joe still acted as a
vigilante?

Also look at (3)(a). There were officers in the area. This law is
designed to protect citizens from prosecution who live in very rural
areas where enforcement may not be so readily available.

(3)(b) also includes the words "other than deadly".

(2) also uses the words "to prevent" and "during the night time".
IOW, BEFORE the act is actually committed. Or at most, in the process.

The law does not give a person the right to "Shoot and kill".
It gives the citizen authority to hold and detain.

Joe Horn shot two people in the back. By doing so, he violated this
law. The only reason he is not being prosecuted is because the news
media has touted him as some kind of wild west vigilante hero.

Had Joe Horn been black, he'd be in jail.

krw wrote
Rod Speed wrote
krw wrote
Rod Speed wrote
wrote
richard wrote

Would you even be able to give away any of the nearby
houses once it became common knowledge? Or, if a
realtor made efforts to conceal this fact when selling
a neighboring house, do the buyers have any recourse?

So you're a card carrying member of NIMBY huh?

Of course my scenario was hypothetical, but are you saying you'd be fine
with it if you for example had small kids and found out you just bought a
house next to someone who'd done a stretch for pedophilia related crimes?

No, but thats the reason few places allow that sort of thing to be
publicised, where those who have been convicted are currently 'living'

Huh? Most places have laws specifically addressing pedophiles and other
sex criminals (whether they should and how it's run is another issue).

Few places allow where those are currently 'living'
to be publicised to anyone who wants to know.

Wrong again, Ron.

We'll see...

Court records (criminal) are public information, just as the proceedings are public.

Pity neither have any details on where criminals who have served their time are currently residing.

Many have web sites where you can look up the names and addresses
of those convicted of sex crimes and search for any in your neighborhood.

**** all do, actually.

Only if it resulted in a criminal conviction and it doesn't require anything
worse than a panty-raid or similar college prank to be placed on such a list.

Pity that that doesnt include where they currently reside.

Criminal records are public information.

But not the current location of criminals who are no longer in jail.

Wrong again, Ron.

We'll see...

They certainly *are* available for those convicted of "sex crimes".

Pity we were discussing those who had been released from jail after a killing spree.

Or someone famous for having murdered a bunch of
people at some point because "the voices" told him to?

Why would it be any better if they had murdered just one ?

Serial murderers are the same as those who have committed "crimes of passion"?

Irrelevant to what risk you run from either sort of criminal.

Bull****.

You sig is supposed to be at the bottom with -- on a line by itself in front of it.

There is a big difference between those who have
murdered their spouse for example, and Jeffery Dahmer.

Pity the OP wasnt discussing either.

The only alternative is to keep all those with mental problems locked up till they die.

Well...

Pathetic.

They are and should never see light again (nor another meal, but that's a different issue).

All those with mental problems eh ? Great, one way to get rid of fools like you.

Even if you did find out, there is no legal recourse
you can take to force him to move elsewhere.

I was thinking of recourse against the realtor and/or seller for not disclosing the information.

If there was, they'd just avoid becoming aware of the information deliberately.

As it is with many such things. Then there is "should have known"...

Nope. Not with something like that that isnt common knowledge.

Wrong again, Ron.

Nope.

I must say, you are consistent.

And you never ever could bull**** your way out of a wet paper bag.

Larry wrote:
In article ,
krw wrote:

In article ,
says...
krw wrote
Rod Speed wrote
wrote
richard wrote

Would you even be able to give away any of the nearby houses
once it became common knowledge? Or, if a realtor made efforts
to conceal this fact when selling a neighboring house, do the
buyers have any recourse?

So you're a card carrying member of NIMBY huh?

Of course my scenario was hypothetical, but are you saying you'd
be fine
with it if you for example had small kids and found out you just
bought a
house next to someone who'd done a stretch for pedophilia related
crimes?

No, but thats the reason few places allow that sort of thing to be
publicised, where those who have been convicted are currently
'living'

Huh? Most places have laws specifically addressing pedophiles and
other sex criminals (whether they should and how it's run is
another issue).

Few places allow where those are currently 'living' to be
publicised to anyone who wants to know.

Wrong again, Ron. Court records (criminal) are public information,
just as the proceedings are public.

Many have web sites where you can look up the names and addresses
of those convicted of sex crimes and search for any in your
neighborhood.

**** all do, actually.

Only if it resulted in a criminal conviction and it doesn't require
anything worse than a panty-raid or similar college prank to be
placed on such a list.

Criminal records are public information.

But not the current location of criminals who are no longer in jail.

Wrong again, Ron. They certainly *are* available for those
convicted of "sex crimes".

Or someone famous for having murdered a bunch of
people at some point because "the voices" told him to?

Why would it be any better if they had murdered just one ?

Serial murderers are the same as those who have committed "crimes
of passion"?

Irrelevant to what risk you run from either sort of criminal.

Bull****. There is a big difference between those who have murdered
their spouse for example, and Jeffery Dahmer.

The only alternative is to keep all those with mental problems
locked up till they die.

Well...

Pathetic.

They are and should never see light again (nor another meal, but
that's a different issue).

Even if you did find out, there is no legal recourse you can
take to force him to move elsewhere.

I was thinking of recourse against the realtor and/or seller for
not disclosing the information.

If there was, they'd just avoid becoming aware of the information
deliberately.

As it is with many such things. Then there is "should have
known"...

Nope. Not with something like that that isnt common knowledge.

Wrong again, Ron. I must say, you are consistent.

He really is obtuse, isn't he?

No need to ask if you are a terminal ****wit, the answer is too obvious.

krw wrote:
In article ,
says...
"krw" wrote
Laws may not *allow* the realtor to disclose such even if they are
aware of
it. The home owner may or may not be required to disclose such,
rather area
dependant on disclosure laws.

Nonsense. It *is* public information.

I never said it wasn't. What your area (state) requires may match
another or may not be the same. I advised to look up the laws for
the area involved. Normally pretty easy to find.


You did when you said, "Laws may not *allow* the Realtor to
disclose...". It is perfectly legal to "disclose" public information.

Pity the current location of spree killers who have served their time isnt.

In my area for example, folks selling are advised to 'not
disclose' as you
can't be sued later for anything that comes up. If you do
'disclose' you can be sued even years later for just about
anything even if you can prove
you did NOT know about it (obviously hard to prove such, and wont
save you
here).

You certainly do live in a strange world. We had a lengthy
disclosure form to fill out that went through the entire house. I
looked at it as a good thing. As long as I answered the questions
honestly there was nothing to come back after me for, though that
wouldn't stop an ambulance chaser.

Just wierd to me, but got same info from several realtors. I do not
live in a 'must disclose' state.

It is *not* uncommon. I've had to do it twice now, in different states.
The last one was *very* strict. Agents get sued for non-disclosure
all the time, even though there was no way they *could* have known.
...even if the homeowner obviously did, the agent gets sued (deep pockets).

Only in the stupid US system.

'Technically' my house was bought 'non-disclosed' but folks have a
way here
of working out basic stuff 'off the record'. Seller for example
quietly warned us that with a house built in 1963, it was largely
code-spec to 1963
and that future work, depending on what it was, would sometimes
entail additional costs. He was real careful to explain the back
room was codespec
only to 'enclosed porch' for example and now we understand why ;-).
Reality
is at the time it was a rental bedroom for a roomate, bed and all.
It's a
'legal thing' to call my home a 3BR 1.5 bath, vice a 4 BR 1.5
bath. Had he
tried to market it as a 4 BR officially, he would have been
required to pay
to bring that enclosure to codespec of the time for a BR.

My house had a building permit and CO as a two bedroom[*] house,
even though there were clearly three. Before I could even put it on
the market I had to get the permit and CO "upgraded" to three
bedrooms. It cost me $3500, for nothing but paper and five minutes
of the town clerk's time.

I'm not sure what the costs would have been in 1995 to bring it up
to code, only an estimate in 2007 that was very open ended as in 'we
expect to find more'. Of what I can recall besides the roof having
to go up was the slab had to be raised to level to the rest of the
house (it's a 1.5 inch or so drop). I thought that one very odd
indeed. They seemed quite happy to make it with no windows but
spec'd out that if it had a window it had to be a certain size...
(The room has 2 doors so the window apparently isnt required but i
already have one bedroom with no windows and 2 doors).

[*] who in their right mind would build (or allow to be built) a two
bedroom 2-1/2 bath house?

Grin, does sound odd!

I didn't grin at the $3500 - for nothing.

Your problem.

krw wrote
Rod Speed wrote
krw wrote
wrote
thedarkonelives wrote

I was thinking of recourse against the realtor
and/or seller for not disclosing the information.

Laws may not *allow* the relator to disclose such even if they
are aware of it. The home owner may or may not be required
to disclose such, rather area dependant on disclosure laws.

Nonsense.

Your sig is supposed to be at the bottom, with a line with just -- on a line by itself in front of it.

It *is* public information.

The current location of an ex prisoner isnt.

You ****ing idiot, it *IS* public knowledge in many states and
web searchable for those convicted of "sex crimes", whether
the crime is kiddie porn, child rape, or a college hazing prank.

Pity we happen to be discussing a SPREE KILLER, ****wit.

In my area for example, folks selling are advised to 'not disclose'
as you can't be sued later for anything that comes up. If you do
'disclose' you can be sued even years later for just about anything
even if you can prove you did NOT know about it (obviously hard
to prove such, and wont save you here).

You certainly do live in a strange world. We had a lengthy
disclosure form to fill out that went through the entire house.

But which didnt include anything about the neighbours.

Do try to keep up, Ronnie.

Go and **** yourself, gutless.

I looked at it as a good thing. As long as I answered the
questions honestly there was nothing to come back after
me for, though that wouldn't stop an ambulance chaser.

So it was in fact completely useless.

So, in fact you are as stupid as you pretend on the Usenet.

We'll see...

I still *had* to disclose,

No you didnt, most obviously if you hadnt used a ****wit agent.

but could describe exactly the circumstances.

And it was in fact completely useless liability wise anyway.

'Technically' my house was bought 'non-disclosed' but folks have
a way here of working out basic stuff 'off the record'. Seller for
example quietly warned us that with a house built in 1963, it was
largely code-spec to 1963 and that future work, depending on what
it was, would sometimes entail additional costs. He was real
careful to explain the back room was codespec only to 'enclosed
porch' for example and now we understand why ;-). Reality is at
the time it was a rental bedroom for a roomate, bed and all. It's
a 'legal thing' to call my home a 3BR 1.5 bath, vice a 4 BR 1.5
bath. Had he tried to market it as a 4 BR officially, he would
have been required to pay to bring that encloser to codespec of
the time for a BR.

My house had a building permit and CO as a two bedroom[*] house,
even though there were clearly three. Before I could even put it on the
market I had to get the permit and CO "upgraded" to three bedrooms.
It cost me $3500, for nothing but paper and five minutes of the town
clerk's time.

Your problem.

Obviously, you stupid ass!

Wota stunningly rational line of argument you have there, child.

[*] who in their right mind would build (or allow to be built) a two bedroom 2-1/2 bath house?

Those who arent stupid enough to spend more on more house when they dont need that.

You certainly are a dumb ****!

Wota stunningly rational line of argument you have there, child.

Larry wrote
Rod Speed wrote
Larry wrote
Rod Speed wrote
Larry wrote
Rod Speed wrote
krw wrote
Rod Speed wrote
wrote
richard wrote

Would you even be able to give away any of the nearby
houses once it became common knowledge? Or, if a
realtor made efforts to conceal this fact when selling
a neighboring house, do the buyers have any recourse?

So you're a card carrying member of NIMBY huh?

Of course my scenario was hypothetical, but are you saying
you'd be fine with it if you for example had small kids and
found out you just bought a house next to someone who'd
done a stretch for pedophilia related crimes?

No, but thats the reason few places allow that sort of thing to be
publicised, where those who have been convicted are currently 'living'

Huh? Most places have laws specifically addressing pedophiles and other
sex criminals (whether they should and how it's run is another issue).

Few places allow where those are currently 'living'
to be publicised to anyone who wants to know.

Many have web sites where you can look up the names and addresses
of those convicted of sex crimes and search for any in your neighborhood.

**** all do, actually.

Well, that's where they're currently living, isn't it?

Irrelevant to what can be looked up on web sites.

How is looking up where they're currently living on a web
site irrelevant to determining where they currently live?

Never ever said anything even remotely resembling anything like that.

It's what everyone else said.

You're lying, as always.

Your lack of ability to read and comprehend is truly astounding.

Never ever could bull**** and lie its way out of a wet paper bag.

No surprise that the best it can ever manage is parasite.

Oh, and that's not only easy to claim, but your posts make it easy to substantiate.


Never ever could bull**** and lie its way out of a wet paper bag.

No surprise that the best it can ever manage is parasite.

Criminal records are public information.

But not the current location of criminals who are no longer in jail.

Or someone famous for having murdered a bunch of
people at some point because "the voices" told him to?

Why would it be any better if they had murdered just one ?

Serial murderers are the same as those who have committed "crimes of passion"?

Irrelevant to what risk you run from either sort of criminal.

It's entirely relevant!

Easy to claim, hell of a lot harder to actually substantiate that claim.

Ahh, your favorite line.

Wrong, as always.

In other words, you're conceding.

Only in your pathetic little drug crazed parasite fantasyland.

Actually, to everyone who knows you and has read this thread.

Never ever could bull**** and lie its way out of a wet paper bag.

No surprise that the best it can ever manage is parasite.

You're a joke.

And you're a lying parasite. As everyone can see.

A serial killer

It wasnt serial killers being discussed, it was those who kill a number of people at once.

Above someone used the phrase "serial murderers."

Pity that wasnt what was being discussed.

If someone used that phrase, and others responded to it, it was, ipso facto, being discussed.

Not when everyone who did respond to it pointed out that its irrelevant to what was being discussed, ****wit.

You do know that you don't get to decide what is discussed and what isn't, right?

Never ever could bull**** and lie its way out of a wet paper bag.

No surprise that the best it can ever manage is parasite.

I used "serial killers."

Pity that wasnt what was being discussed.

It was by everyone but you, fool.

Everyone can see you are lying, just like you always end up doing when
you have got done like a ****ing dinner, time after time after time.

No surprise that the best it can ever manage is parasite.

You're so blinded by your need to pick a fight

Corse you never ever do anything like that yourself, eh parasite ?

I was engaged in this discussion before you, fool,

Everyone can see you are lying, just like you always end up doing when
you have got done like a ****ing dinner, time after time after time.

No surprise that the best it can ever manage is parasite.

and I didn't pick a fight with anyone.

Everyone can see you are lying, just like you always end up doing when
you have got done like a ****ing dinner, time after time after time.

No surprise that the best it can ever manage is parasite.

that you move the goalposts just to do it, don't you?

I wasnt the one heading off on a completely irrelevancy to what was being discussed, ****wit.

Yes, actually you were.

Everyone can see you are lying, just like you always end up doing when
you have got done like a ****ing dinner, time after time after time.

No surprise that the best it can ever manage is parasite.

No wonder the best you have ever been able to manage is parasite.

is much more likely to reoffend than a guy who killed
his wife's lover after walking in on them in bed together.

Irrelevant to whether someone who has killed more than one in a single
event is more of a risk to you than someone who has just killed one.

You obviously know very little about recidivism and the sociological aspect of criminology.

You've got your dick in your hand, as always.

This is just plain common sense.

Pity it wasnt what was actually being discussed.

Just because you weren't discussing it

Nope, because thats what the OP wasnt discussing, ****wit.

Conversations and discussions evolve, moron.

This one never did, ****wit.

ALL that ever happened was you two clowns blowing both feet off VERY
spectacularly indeed and fooling absolutely no one at all in your desperate
attempts to bull**** your way out of your predicament, as always.

- or more precisely, you can't follow such a discussion

I followed what the OP was discussing fine, thanks.

- does not mean it wasn't being discussed.

I just pointed out that serial murderers were irrelevant to what was being discussed, ****wit.

You made a VERY spectacular fool of yourself when you were actually
stupid enough to claim that serial murderers are relevant to what
was actually being discussed and are now desperately attempting to
bull**** your way out of your predicament and are fooling absolutely
no one at all, as always.

The only alternative is to keep all those with mental problems locked up till they die.

Well...

Pathetic.

Another alternative is that they could come live with you.

Or you could be incarcerated with them, as you deserve to be, parasite.

This should be a laugh

We'll see...

- why do I "deserve" to be incarcerated, fool?

Because you cant bull**** your way out of a wet paper bag, ****wit.

And even if that's true,

Everyone can see for themselves that that is true.

it is a crime in your eyes?

Yep. Summary execution is the only reasonable way to deal with parasites like you.

Because I've repeatedly shown you up?

Only in your pathetic little drug crazed parasite fantasyland.

You're pathetic.

You're a lying parasite.

Easy to claim, and self-substantiating by your own posts.

Cant even manage its own lines, or anything else at all, either.

No surprise that the best its ever been able to manage is lying parasite.

Larry wrote
Rod Speed wrote
krw wrote
Rod Speed wrote
krw wrote
wrote
thedarkonelives wrote

I was thinking of recourse against the realtor
and/or seller for not disclosing the information.

Laws may not *allow* the relator to disclose such even if they
are aware of it. The home owner may or may not be required
to disclose such, rather area dependant on disclosure laws.

Nonsense.

Your sig is supposed to be at the bottom, with a line with just -- on a line by itself in front of it.

It *is* public information.

The current location of an ex prisoner isnt.

You ****ing idiot, it *IS* public knowledge in many states and
web searchable for those convicted of "sex crimes", whether
the crime is kiddie porn, child rape, or a college hazing prank.

Pity we happen to be discussing a SPREE KILLER, ****wit.

Actually, we all moved on.

Everyone can see you are lying, just like you always end up doing when
you have got done like a ****ing dinner, time after time after time.

No surprise that the best it can ever manage is parasite.

richard wrote
HeyBub wrote
richard wrote

What does the 'code of the west' say about shooting two men in the back?

Even more so, unarmed.
Even the wild west law saw that as murder.

I see you're posting moved through the servers at the University
of Maryland - hardly a repository of "code of the west" knowledge.
Nevertheless, assuming you are trying to increase your store of wild
west lore, let me disabuse you of what you hope to be the case:

Here's one example:

"Texas Penal Code 9.42 DEADLY FORCE TO PROTECT PROPERTY"

"A person is justified in using deadly force against another to
protect land or tangible, moveable property:
(2) when and to the degree he reasonably believes the deadly force is
immediately necessary:
(A) to prevent the other's imminent commission of arson, burglary,
robbery, aggravated robbery, theft during the nighttime, or criminal
mischief during the nighttime, or
(B) to prevent the other who is fleeing immediately after committing
burglary, robbery..., and
(3) he reasonably believes that
(A) the land or property cannot be protected or recovered by any
other means, or
(B) the use of force other than deadly force to protect or recover
the land or property would expose the actor to... risk of death or
serious bodily injury."

In the Joe Horn case, the two goblins had just committed a burglary
and were fleeing, thereby fulfilling (2)(B) above. Joe is in his
60's and the two squints were young, strapping males. Even if Joe
could catch them in a foot race, and even if they were unarmed (the
weren't - they had pry-bars and other burglar tools) the chance of
death or serious bodily injury is a reasonable expectation, thereby
meeting the requirements of (3)(B).

So, Joe simply sicced old double-barreled Betsy on their asses.

I'm sure Joe didn't have a Texas Penal Code checklist on hand so he
could mark off the nuanced requirements of the law.

He simply saw his duty and he did it.

All true, except for a couple of things.
Joe Horn failed to comply with a directive from the police department.
"Do not go outside."

The cops dont get to issue any such 'directive'

The 911 person said this how many times? 3?

That aint even a cop.

And Joe still acted as a vigilante?

The law allows that.

Also look at (3)(a). There were officers in the area.

But not on site.

This law is designed to protect citizens from prosecution who live in
very rural areas where enforcement may not be so readily available.

How odd that it doesnt say anything like that.

(3)(b) also includes the words "other than deadly".

There's an OR between them. Its there for a reason.

(2) also uses the words "to prevent" and "during the night time".
IOW, BEFORE the act is actually committed. Or at most, in the process.

Wrong. (2)B covers it completely.

The law does not give a person the right to "Shoot and kill".

Wrong. Thats precisely what it does. The words deadly force are included for a reason.

It gives the citizen authority to hold and detain.

It also give the citizen the authority to use DEADLY FORCE and says the explicitly.

Joe Horn shot two people in the back. By doing so, he violated this law.

No he didnt.

The only reason he is not being prosecuted is because the news
media has touted him as some kind of wild west vigilante hero.

Nope, because he didnt breach that law.

Had Joe Horn been black, he'd be in jail.

Irrelevant, he didnt breach that law.

richard wrote:
Here's one example:

"Texas Penal Code 9.42 DEADLY FORCE TO PROTECT PROPERTY"

"A person is justified in using deadly force against another to
protect land or tangible, moveable property:
(2) when and to the degree he reasonably believes the deadly force is
immediately necessary:
(A) to prevent the other's imminent commission of arson, burglary,
robbery, aggravated robbery, theft during the nighttime, or criminal
mischief during the nighttime, or
(B) to prevent the other who is fleeing immediately after committing
burglary, robbery..., and
(3) he reasonably believes that
(A) the land or property cannot be protected or recovered by any
other means, or
(B) the use of force other than deadly force to protect or recover
the land or property would expose the actor to... risk of death or
serious bodily injury."

In the Joe Horn case, the two goblins had just committed a burglary
and were fleeing, thereby fulfilling (2)(B) above. Joe is in his
60's and the two squints were young, strapping males. Even if Joe
could catch them in a foot race, and even if they were unarmed (the
weren't - they had pry-bars and other burglar tools) the chance of
death or serious bodily injury is a reasonable expectation, thereby
meeting the requirements of (3)(B).

So, Joe simply sicced old double-barreled Betsy on their asses.

I'm sure Joe didn't have a Texas Penal Code checklist on hand so he
could mark off the nuanced requirements of the law.

He simply saw his duty and he did it.



All true, except for a couple of things.
Joe Horn failed to comply with a directive from the police department.
"Do not go outside."
The 911 person said this how many times? 3? And Joe still acted as a
vigilante?

The 911 operators are not cops and have no authority to issue commands. They
can make "suggestions," but they are not on the scene.


Also look at (3)(a). There were officers in the area. This law is
designed to protect citizens from prosecution who live in very rural
areas where enforcement may not be so readily available.

(3)(A) does not apply. The crime had already been completed. Further, the
law does not say "... applies only in counties of less than three thousand
people..."


(3)(b) also includes the words "other than deadly".

Yes. But that's not a choice, it's a condition. If the use of "other than
deadly" force would subject the citizen to the risk of serious bodily
injury, then the citizen is justified in skipping the "other than deadly"
business.


(2) also uses the words "to prevent" and "during the night time".
IOW, BEFORE the act is actually committed. Or at most, in the process.

Right. But (2) does not apply. The offense had already been committed, now
we're dealing with the "fleeing" phase.


The law does not give a person the right to "Shoot and kill".

Oh yes it does. Any citizen in my state has the right to use deadly force -
with the possibility of death resulting from that use - under the
circumstances outlined above. I'm telling you this not only as a matter of
law, but from my time as a cop, as a matter of public policy.

It gives the citizen authority to hold and detain.

That too.

Of course this law obtains in my jurisdiction. Your local laws, and
community attitudes, may be different. The laws are certainly different in
the UK, for example.



Joe Horn shot two people in the back. By doing so, he violated this
law. The only reason he is not being prosecuted is because the news
media has touted him as some kind of wild west vigilante hero.

My view is that Joe Horn did not violate the law, but we'll let the system
decide the technical details. But irrespective of whether Joe violated the
law, there's no doubt he is a hero.


Had Joe Horn been black, he'd be in jail.

Maybe in Delaware, but not in Texas. Here's a recent case where a Houston
black man shot a burglar and got an award:
http://politicalblog.abc13.com/2007/...rep-borri.html

The facts are slightly different - the scrot didn't die - but deadly force
WAS used. Now you may say: "But it was self-defense! The misunderstood
citizen threw a knife at the shooter!" Well, yes. But the knife obviously
missed. Now the deprived, downtrodden, alleged thief is UNARMED and Miles
(the shooter) SHOT A DEFENSELESS MAN ANYWAY!" Here, we give testimonial
dinners and free passes to Six Flags for such actions.

Still searching for a rationale, you may pooh-pooh the situation by saying
Miles was a politician and got special treatment. Well, not so. Miles was
recently arrested for pulling his gun where he shouldn't.
http://www.bloghouston.net/item/6895

Some gutless ****wit parasite desperately cowering behind
Larry desperately attempted to bull**** its way out
of its predicament and fooled absolutely no one at all, as always.

No surprise that the best it could ever manage is lying parasite.

Larry wrote
Rod Speed wrote
richard wrote
HeyBub wrote
richard wrote

What does the 'code of the west' say about shooting two men in the back?

Even more so, unarmed.
Even the wild west law saw that as murder.

I see you're posting moved through the servers at the University
of Maryland - hardly a repository of "code of the west" knowledge.
Nevertheless, assuming you are trying to increase your store of
wild west lore, let me disabuse you of what you hope to be the case:

Here's one example:

"Texas Penal Code 9.42 DEADLY FORCE TO PROTECT PROPERTY"

"A person is justified in using deadly force against another to
protect land or tangible, moveable property:
(2) when and to the degree he reasonably believes the deadly force
is immediately necessary:
(A) to prevent the other's imminent commission of arson, burglary,
robbery, aggravated robbery, theft during the nighttime, or
criminal mischief during the nighttime, or
(B) to prevent the other who is fleeing immediately after
committing burglary, robbery..., and
(3) he reasonably believes that
(A) the land or property cannot be protected or recovered by any
other means, or
(B) the use of force other than deadly force to protect or recover
the land or property would expose the actor to... risk of death or
serious bodily injury."

In the Joe Horn case, the two goblins had just committed a burglary
and were fleeing, thereby fulfilling (2)(B) above. Joe is in his
60's and the two squints were young, strapping males. Even if Joe
could catch them in a foot race, and even if they were unarmed (the
weren't - they had pry-bars and other burglar tools) the chance of
death or serious bodily injury is a reasonable expectation, thereby
meeting the requirements of (3)(B).

So, Joe simply sicced old double-barreled Betsy on their asses.

I'm sure Joe didn't have a Texas Penal Code checklist on hand
so he could mark off the nuanced requirements of the law.

He simply saw his duty and he did it.

All true, except for a couple of things.
Joe Horn failed to comply with a directive from the police department. "Do not go outside."

The cops dont get to issue any such 'directive'

In some jurisdictions they do.

Not in that situation they dont, liar.

In article ,
HeyBub wrote:
richard wrote:

What does the 'code of the west' say about shooting two men in the
back?



Even more so, unarmed.
Even the wild west law saw that as murder.

I see you're posting moved through the servers at the University of
Maryland - hardly a repository of "code of the west" knowledge.
Nevertheless, assuming you are trying to increase your store of wild west
lore, let me disabuse you of what you hope to be the case:

Here's one example:

"Texas Penal Code 9.42 DEADLY FORCE TO PROTECT PROPERTY"

"A person is justified in using deadly force against another to protect land
or tangible, moveable property:
(2) when and to the degree he reasonably believes the deadly force is
immediately necessary:
(A) to prevent the other's imminent commission of arson, burglary,
robbery, aggravated robbery, theft during the nighttime, or criminal
mischief during the nighttime, or
(B) to prevent the other who is fleeing immediately after committing
burglary, robbery..., and
(3) he reasonably believes that
(A) the land or property cannot be protected or recovered by any other
means, or
(B) the use of force other than deadly force to protect or recover the
land or property would expose the actor to... risk of death or serious
bodily injury."

In the Joe Horn case, the two goblins had just committed a burglary and were
fleeing, thereby fulfilling (2)(B) above.

Fulfilling 2B isn't enough under the law. And unless the theft happened
at night (the part you edited out - why?), even 2B wasn't fulfilled.

You also edited out that 2B is only part of the requirement before deadly
force can be used. 9.42 additionally rquires that he be justified in
using force under 9.41, which makes it clear that the justification
only applies to defending one's own property.

You are posting some seriously flawed legal advice on a very serious matter.
I hope no one relies on it to their detriment.

"Rod Speed" wrote in message
...
Larry wrote
Rod Speed wrote
krw wrote
Rod Speed wrote
wrote
richard wrote


[snip}


Of course my scenario was hypothetical, but are you saying you'd
be fine with it if you for example had small kids and found out
you just bought a house next to someone who'd done a stretch for
pedophilia related crimes?

No, but thats the reason few places allow that sort of thing to be
publicised, where those who have been convicted are currently 'living'

Huh? Most places have laws specifically addressing pedophiles and
other
sex criminals (whether they should and how it's run is another issue).

Few places allow where those are currently 'living' to be publicised
to anyone who wants to know.

Many have web sites where you can look up the names and addresses of
those convicted of sex crimes and search for any in your neighborhood.

**** all do, actually.

Well, that's where they're currently living, isn't it?

Irrelevant to what can be looked up on web sites.

Criminal records are public information.

But not the current location of criminals who are no longer in jail.


[snip}

Actually, quarterly our local newspaper publishes names, addresses and
photos of sex offenders who have been released and are now living in this
county. There are also regulations on where they can live in the county, in
terms of a required distances their residence must be from schools and
churches.

In article ,
says...
krw wrote
Rod Speed wrote
krw wrote
Rod Speed wrote
wrote
richard wrote

Would you even be able to give away any of the nearby
houses once it became common knowledge? Or, if a
realtor made efforts to conceal this fact when selling
a neighboring house, do the buyers have any recourse?

So you're a card carrying member of NIMBY huh?

Of course my scenario was hypothetical, but are you saying you'd be fine
with it if you for example had small kids and found out you just bought a
house next to someone who'd done a stretch for pedophilia related crimes?

No, but thats the reason few places allow that sort of thing to be
publicised, where those who have been convicted are currently 'living'

Huh? Most places have laws specifically addressing pedophiles and other
sex criminals (whether they should and how it's run is another issue).

Few places allow where those are currently 'living'
to be publicised to anyone who wants to know.

Wrong again, Ron.

We'll see...

What's to see, Ronnie? THe facts are quite clear; so clear you
*can't* see.

Court records (criminal) are public information, just as the proceedings are public.

Pity neither have any details on where criminals who have served their time are currently residing.

Wrong, as usual, Ronnie.

Many have web sites where you can look up the names and addresses
of those convicted of sex crimes and search for any in your neighborhood.

**** all do, actually.

Only if it resulted in a criminal conviction and it doesn't require anything
worse than a panty-raid or similar college prank to be placed on such a list.

Pity that that doesnt include where they currently reside.

As usual, you're wrong once again.

Criminal records are public information.

But not the current location of criminals who are no longer in jail.

Wrong again, Ron.

We'll see...

Lost the argument so you divert. Doesn't work when you've been
caught in such a glaring lie.

They certainly *are* available for those convicted of "sex crimes".

Pity we were discussing those who had been released from jail after a killing spree.

Well, you *are* consistent in your blindness.

Or someone famous for having murdered a bunch of
people at some point because "the voices" told him to?

Why would it be any better if they had murdered just one ?

Serial murderers are the same as those who have committed "crimes of passion"?

Irrelevant to what risk you run from either sort of criminal.

Bull****.

You sig is supposed to be at the bottom with -- on a line by itself in front of it.

Your brain is supposed to be in your head, too Ronnie.

There is a big difference between those who have
murdered their spouse for example, and Jeffery Dahmer.

Pity the OP wasnt discussing either.

Please do learn how to read what you're responding to. Please do
follow along.

The only alternative is to keep all those with mental problems locked up till they die.

Well...

Pathetic.

They are and should never see light again (nor another meal, but that's a different issue).

All those with mental problems eh ? Great, one way to get rid of fools like you.

P=KB there Ronnie.

Even if you did find out, there is no legal recourse
you can take to force him to move elsewhere.

I was thinking of recourse against the realtor and/or seller for not disclosing the information.

If there was, they'd just avoid becoming aware of the information deliberately.

As it is with many such things. Then there is "should have known"...

Nope. Not with something like that that isnt common knowledge.

Wrong again, Ron.

Nope.

Wow, not "we'll see"? You are, of course, still wrong.

I must say, you are consistent.

And you never ever could bull**** your way out of a wet paper bag.

....and he once again concedes the argument.

--
Keith

In article ,
frankdotlogullo@comcastperiodnet says...
wrote:
On Jun 18, 1:14 am, (Dick Adams) wrote:

Let's change this to Lee (a gender neutral name), a convicted
sex offender sentenced to probation only, wants to buy or rent.

1) Who has a obligation to investigate Lee's background
before becoming Lee's agent or selling or renting to
Lee?



To clarify, I'm thinking of the realtor or seller of a house in close
proximity to the killer, not the killer's realtor.


I would guess that disclosure not necessary and if it were murderer's
residence, it would probably be up to local laws. For example, I'm
pretty sure that here, you could disclose it but if everybody in the
house died of AIDS, disclosure is not allowed by law. The people to ask
are your local real estate association.

That disclosure may not be allowed by medical persons, but it would
hardly be against the law for anyone else (not having access to
privileged records). Slander/libel might be an issue, unless it's
true.

--
Keith

JimR wrote
Rod Speed wrote
Larry wrote
Rod Speed wrote
krw wrote
Rod Speed wrote
wrote
richard wrote

Of course my scenario was hypothetical, but are you saying you'd
be fine with it if you for example had small kids and found out
you just bought a house next to someone who'd done a stretch for
pedophilia related crimes?

No, but thats the reason few places allow that sort of thing to be publicised, where those who have been
convicted are currently 'living'

Huh? Most places have laws specifically addressing pedophiles and other
sex criminals (whether they should and how it's run is another issue).

Few places allow where those are currently 'living' to be
publicised to anyone who wants to know.

Many have web sites where you can look up the names and addresses
of those convicted of sex crimes and search for any in your neighborhood.

**** all do, actually.

Well, that's where they're currently living, isn't it?

Irrelevant to what can be looked up on web sites.

Criminal records are public information.

But not the current location of criminals who are no longer in jail.

Actually, quarterly our local newspaper publishes names, addresses and photos of sex offenders who have been released
and are now living in this county.

Pity the OP was talking about a SPREE KILLER, not a sex offender.

There are also regulations on where they can live in the county, in terms of a required distances their residence must
be from schools and churches.

Pity there isnt with the SPREE KILLER the OP was talking about.

Some gutless ****wit desperately cowering behind
krw desperately attempted to bull**** and lie its way
out of its predicament and fooled absolutely no one at all, as always.

Some gutless ****wit parasite desperately cowering behind
Larry desperately attempted to bull**** and lie its way
out of its predicament and fooled absolutely no one at all, as always.

No surprise that the best its ever been able to manage is lying parasite.

Some gutless ****wit parasite desperately cowering behind
Larry desperately attempted to bull**** and lie its way
out of its predicament and fooled absolutely no one at all, as always.

No surprise that the best its ever been able to manage is lying parasite.