NationStates Jolt Archive

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/

CRAWFORD, Texas (CNN) — A Danish journalist came this close to getting shot Saturday by an elderly woman packing a pistol near President Bush's ranch here in what was easily the strangest incident I've ever witnessed covering the White House.

It all started so innocently as I sat with a group of Danish journalists just down the street from Bush's ranch during a visit by Danish Prime Minister Anders Fogh Rasmussen. The two leaders were having lunch on the ranch, so I was waiting at a nearby historic one-room schoolhouse with White House staff to interview Rasmussen after the meal. Then the prime minister was going to do a brief press conference with the Danish press corps.

Terkel Svensson, a writer for the Danish News Agency, could not get wireless Internet access at the schoolhouse to file a story. But Svensson could get his cell phone working so he called his editor in
Copenhagen and started wandering across a quiet country road as he chatted away.

"I was just so occupied dictating my story that I didn't really see where I went," Svensson told me later. "I was just walking and talking."

What Svensson didn't realize was that he had stopped walking a couple hundred feet away, on the front lawn of an elderly woman. An elderly woman who looked through her window and didn't like that a strange man was standing outside her house. An elderly woman who had, um, a gun.

Next thing you know the woman is outside, no more than a few dozen feet from the journalist, demanding that he leave. "Suddenly she comes out and she says, 'Get off my property. You're trespassing,'" recalled Svensson.

Svensson was too preoccupied to notice the pistol, and was not aware that Texas law gives homeowners leeway on using a weapon when someone is trespassing on your property. All of us journalists across the street were too far away to see the pistol at first, until a Danish photographer with a telephoto lens announced to a bunch of us that there was indeed a weapon in the elderly woman's right hand.

As word spread that the lady had a gun - which she did not use - I can tell you it's a severe understatement to say White House and Secret Service officials were a bit concerned about the fact that they had just dodged an international incident. Ditto for Svensson, who was alarmed when he safely crossed the street and was shown dramatic still photos of the lady holding the gun.

"I will show the photos to my wife and children," Svensson told me. "They thought I was on a safe trip."

CNN was not able to reach the woman for comment.


Oh yeah! Old redneck ladies ftw! Makes you wish Texas were still an independent nation.

Yeah, the small towns here are... Bad, and let's leave it at that.

The larger cities, though, are mostly normal. Mostly. Though the accents can really begin to get on one's nerves.

Such a tragic, war-making incident it would have been...

In rural areas it's important to remember, if you go on someone's property without permission, you may get shot.

Mind your manners kids.

Such a tragic, war-making incident it would have been...

Luckily, the American people can rest safely tonight.

Sometimes I love Texas, lol. :fluffle:

With stuff like that, it's no wonder that Americans are so respected across the globe.

she clearly should of had a bigger gun and fired wildly into the air

what has become of Texas:(

"I will show the photos to my wife and children,"

:D

Usa Usa!:d

She must have mistaken them for Mexican raiders :p

She must have mistaken them for Mexican raiders :p

Dang right em mexican killed mista davy crockett!!:p

Come to Austin, don't leave the city limits.

Oh how i love Texas :D

geez she didnt shoot him, whats the problem?

Dear Mexico:

We're sorry. Take Texas back.


Sincerely,
United States of America.


PS You must take Bush too.

Dear Mexico:

We're sorry. Take Texas back.


Sincerely,
United States of America.


PS You must take Bush too.

Lolz, you'd have to pay them.

Dear Mexico:

We're sorry. Take Texas back.


Sincerely,
United States of America.

Lawl. :p

PS You must take Bush too.

You must really hate Mexico. :confused:

Don't mess with Texas :D

Is there no police force in Texas? Or is, like, Chuck Norris (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/4/4b/WalkerTitle.jpg) the only one?

What's that got to do with anything? Texas is a big state, bigger than most countries.

Texas size: 268,820 sq mi
Germany: 137,847 sq m
France: 260,558 sq mi
UK: 94,526 sq mi

And it's not even the biggest state we got. So yeah, there's more than one cop.

In fairness, what with the protesters, journalists, extra security etc. that must be around when the President is in Crawford, it's no wonder the locals are sick and tired of strangers trampling on their lawns.

Is there no police force in Texas? Or is, like, Chuck Norris (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/4/4b/WalkerTitle.jpg) the only one?

of course there are. why do you ask?

Is there no police force in Texas? Or is, like, Chuck Norris (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/4/4b/WalkerTitle.jpg) the only one?

Dear Mexico:

We're sorry. Take Texas back.


Sincerely,
United States of America.


PS You must take Bush too.

No way, because then we'd lose Austin, Corpus Christi, (central) San Antonio, (most of) Houston, and South Padre Island. Those places alone are worth keeping this state, even if the rest is... Crap, for the most part. :p

Dear Mexico:

We're sorry. Take Texas back.


Sincerely,
United States of America.


PS You must take Bush too.

Dear USA:

It is clear to everyone that we don't have a chance against you. But this blatant attack on our nation's wellbeing cannot go unpunished.

We hereby declare war on the United States of America.

Sincerely,
Mexico

PS We've negotiated a decent price for the services of Lunatic Goofballs. Be afraid.

She was probably just mad at the way the US soccer team was dissed by Denmark after having trounced them. :D

Then why does everyone have guns, and the right to use them against tresspassers? Don't they trust the cops?

Uh, why wouldn't you shoot someone who's on your property without your permission? Especially if you're an elderly woman who lives alone.

What's that got to do with anything? Texas is a big state, bigger than most countries.
<snippers>
And it's not even the biggest state we got. So yeah, there's more than one cop.

Then why does everyone have guns, and the right to use them against tresspassers? Don't they trust the cops?

Oh yeah! Old redneck ladies ftw! Makes you wish Texas were still an independent nation.
If only so they aren't a part of us! What a crazy woman...

Dear Mexico:

We're sorry. Take Texas back.


Sincerely,
United States of America.


PS You must take Bush too.Stop hating Texas or the Bulls will get ya.

*Stands next to bull pen with two hundred angry bulls.*

In fairness, what with the protesters, journalists, extra security etc. that must be around when the President is in Crawford, it's no wonder the locals are sick and tired of strangers trampling on their lawns.That is why I got me a pack of Vikings.

Sometimes I love Texas, lol. :fluffle:
Texas should be put on probation -- it needs to clean up its murder rate, and its child mortality rate at the least.

And of course we won't be biased that Texas gave us two Bushes to lead the country, f** all.

Yea, they couldn't take us back if they wanted too. Hell, it'd be more probable with us "annexing" Mexico. Ha ha ha.

Don't mess with Texas.

Dear USA:

It is clear to everyone that we don't have a chance against you. But this blatant attack on our nation's wellbeing cannot go unpunished.

We hereby declare war on the United States of America.

Sincerely,
Mexico

PS We've negotiated a decent price for the services of Lunatic Goofballs. Be afraid.

Dear North America

While were apologizing, I thank I want Alaska. FRIST you let the British stay here and didn't liberated us. So as a FAIR trade for your ignorance WE WILL TAKE ALASKA!

Sincerely,
Canada

We also would like Maine.:mp5:

That is why I got me a pack of Vikings.

Oy! The Vikings were very good at trampling on people's lawns... particularly British ones... ;)

Yea, they couldn't take us back if they wanted too. Hell, it'd be more probable with us "annexing" Mexico. Ha ha ha.

Don't mess with Texas.

Yeah, right.... sorry, that's not the direction traffic is flowing over the border.

Dear North America

While were apologizing, I thank I want Alaska. FRIST you let the British stay here and didn't liberated us. So as a FAIR trade for your ignorance WE WILL TAKE ALASKA!

Sincerely,
Canada

We also would like Maine.:mp5:

Dear Canada:

Is it possible that America knows more about your history than you?
We asked you to join us... well, ok, we tried to make you join us at gunpoint. In response, you burned down the White House. We took that as a pretty clear indication you didn't want to join us.

You can't have either Alaska or Maine.

Love,

Little Brother USA.

PS
*wedgie*

PPS: You're North America too, as is Mexico.

Dear North America

While were apologizing, I thank I want Alaska. FRIST you let the British stay here and didn't liberated us. So as a FAIR trade for your ignorance WE WILL TAKE ALASKA!

Sincerely,
Canada

We also would like Maine.:mp5:


Dear Canada,

Take us with you.


Signed,
Illinois

Sometimes I wish they'd take all the rednecks, move them to one spot and give them their own country. :(

Sometimes I wish they'd take all the rednecks, move them to one spot and give them their own country. :(

It was called the Confederacy.
However, us snobbish people up north were too forgiving and tolerant. Alas, I weep for humanity.

It was called the Confederacy.
However, us snobbish people up north were too forgiving and tolerant. Alas, I weep for humanity.

Really, Im rather vocal about how we should have just let the south go.

Really, Im rather vocal about how we should have just let the south go.

It wouldn't make a bit of difference, honestly. 'Cept we wouldn't have Martin Luther King day. And Abraham Lincoln's birthday would be t3h suck.

Oy! The Vikings were very good at trampling on people's lawns... particularly British ones... ;)Yes, as well since we feel like we are taking people the loanword Oi, which roughly means wow in Swedish, because you twits have abused it long enough.

Maybe people should just respect other folk's property. That'd be a simple solution to all this.

If I got up one day, and someone was chillin' in my front lawn, I'd be pissed to.

Dear Canada,

Take us with you.


Signed,
IllinoisTreason is in the air.

*Releases traitor eating/smelling lions.*

Dear North America

While were apologizing, I thank I want Alaska. FRIST you let the British stay here and didn't liberated us. So as a FAIR trade for your ignorance WE WILL TAKE ALASKA!

Sincerely,
Canada

We also would like Maine.:mp5:

pfft...we didn't want to be "liberated" by those yanks...


Dear Canada:

Is it possible that America knows more about your history than you?
We asked you to join us... well, ok, we tried to make you join us at gunpoint. In response, you burned down the White House. We took that as a pretty clear indication you didn't want to join us.

You can't have either Alaska or Maine.

Love,

Little Brother USA.

PS
*wedgie*

PPS: You're North America too, as is Mexico.

Good times...good times...

Dear North America

While were apologizing, I thank I want Alaska. FRIST you let the British stay here and didn't liberated us. So as a FAIR trade for your ignorance WE WILL TAKE ALASKA!

Sincerely,
Canada

We also would like Maine.:mp5:
Dear Canada,

We are amused by your notion that Alaska might be "given" to you. Alaska is currently part of the US because we have decided that this arrangement is convenient for us. If you would like us to join Canada, you are free to make us an offer at anytime, which we will consider. Please be advised that we will reject any offer that does not include sufficient protection of individual liberties.

Regards,
Alaska

P.S. You can have the panhandle if you want it. All those liberals would probably rather be part of Canada anyway, but their environmental groups won't let you cut down any trees.

Dear Mexico:

We're sorry. Take Texas back.


Sincerely,
United States of America.


PS You must take Bush too.

Expontiated. :)

P.S. You can have the panhandle if you want it. All those liberals would probably rather be part of Canada anyway, but their environmental groups won't let you cut down any trees.
Who is that, exactly?

Fail to see the problem here.

Dang right em mexican killed mista davy crockett!!:p

Dems stealin our jerbs!

Then why does everyone have guns, and the right to use them against tresspassers? Don't they trust the cops?

Could be they just don't trust the cops to get there in time. In rural Texas, that's not an unreasonable position.

Maybe people should just respect other folk's property. That'd be a simple solution to all this.

If I got up one day, and someone was chillin' in my front lawn, I'd be pissed to.

If they were walking around talking into a cell phone obviously not paying attention to where they were at I would hardly resort to pulling a gun on them

That sort of behavior from a lone stranger does not really scream bad intent to me.

With stuff like that, it's no wonder that Americans are so respected across the globe.

I don't know if that's supposed to be irony or not...

So an old woman defends her self and property? What is the problem? Oh yeah, Americas right to bear arms.:rolleyes:

Meh, she's an elderly woman who probably wasn't functioning at full capacity anyways. She just raised the stakes on "You damn kids get off my lawn!" game that old people apparently love to play.

I'll just add this to the "pro" side of my pro-con list for repealing the 2nd amendment.

I'll just add this to the "pro" side of my pro-con list for repealing the 2nd amendment.

And I'll go ahead and chock up the same for the 1st Amendment as a result of your faulty reasoning being allowed. :rolleyes:

Meh, she's an elderly woman who probably wasn't functioning at full capacity anyways. She just raised the stakes on "You damn kids get off my lawn!" game that old people apparently love to play.

When I get old, I want to sit on my front porch in a rocking chair, telling stories to children about how I walked uphill both ways to school in the snow for about 3 miles, and about how things were cheaper. Despite, of course, the fact that my mother drove me about 10 miles to school until I was old enough to drive myself, on a fairly level terrain and in the mild weather that is native to the Pacific Northwest.

Oh, and then bring my shotgun out and yell at the children on my lawn during the Holidays. 'Cuz there are just some archetypes that need to exist, dammit.

And I'll go ahead and chock up the same for the 1st Amendment as a result of your faulty reasoning being allowed. :rolleyes:

How do you know my reasoning is faulty when I never gave any. I didn't even say exactly what I was adding to the "pro" side of the list. Fill in details much? :p

When I get old, I want to sit on my front porch in a rocking chair, telling stories to children about how I walked uphill both ways to school in the snow for about 3 miles, and about how things were cheaper. Despite, of course, the fact that my mother drove me about 10 miles to school until I was old enough to drive myself, on a fairly level terrain and in the mild weather that is native to the Pacific Northwest.

Oh please, my story is going to be "You know, when I was your age, I walked to school in 15 feet of snow, in a blizzard, and we walked uphill, BOTH WAYS!" And I live in the South. hehe

Oh, and then bring my shotgun out and yell at the children on my lawn during the Holidays. 'Cuz there are just some archetypes that need to exist, dammit.

Meh I'd use my handgun and rifle.

Gosh, America seems like a completely anti-social place to be, sad. I have plenty of criticisms of my country, but at least you will never see a private citizen pointing a gun at you, or even owning an automatic weapon.

Could be they just don't trust the cops to get there in time. In rural Texas, that's not an unreasonable position.

So i guess that means that although there are cops in Texas, there aren't enough of them... IOW, they need more Chuck Norrises. ;)

Oh please, my story is going to be "You know, when I was your age, I walked to school in 15 feet of snow, in a blizzard, and we walked uphill, BOTH WAYS!" And I live in the South. hehe

Sorry. I guess my story was too tame. I haven't been exposed to many crotchety old men.

Meh I'd use my handgun and rifle.

Non-traditionalist.

So what I see here is a poor old woman who was probably a little senile and had some issues in the past and she is protecting her property. She did not do anything illegal and now everyone is ridiculing a whole nation and a state over it.

How very sad.....

Welcome to the fine, fine minds of NSG!

So what I see here is a poor old woman who was probably a little senile and had some issues in the past and she is protecting her property. She did not do anything illegal and now everyone is ridiculing a whole nation and a state over it.

How very sad.....

So what I see here is a poor old woman who was probably a little senile and had some issues in the past and she is protecting her property. She did not do anything illegal and now everyone is ridiculing a whole nation and a state over it.

How very sad.....

Why people who are a little senile and had some issues in the past, protecting property against unarmed and distracted strangers have access to guns to begin with? It was funny because the lady didn't take a shot, or didn't fired the gun at all.

Of course, pointing a gun and threatening someone with it is legal there, but hell, it shouldn't be.

Not to ridiculize an entire nation over it, nor the state, because there are other nations and states where said behavior is allowed, but alas, it shouldn't be.

So what I see here is a poor old woman who was probably a little senile and had some issues in the past and she is protecting her property. She did not do anything illegal and now everyone is ridiculing a whole nation and a state over it.

How very sad.....

I dont know if it is as sad as allowing someone (in your possible theroedical) who is senile own a gun and threaten someone who does not appear to be causing a credible threat to person or property

So an old woman defends her self and property? What is the problem? Oh yeah, Americas right to bear arms.:rolleyes:

She did not defend herself from any credible threat

It becomes a bad thing to bear arms when the person is unwilling or unable to distinguish credible threat against non

Trespassing? Sounds like the lady was trying to get rid of a suspicious character. And she did -- without a single shot fired.

Is private property that rare in Denmark?

:rolleyes:


Yeah, a guy on a cell phone. Suspicious.

You are something else.

Dear Mexico:

We're sorry. Take Texas back.


Sincerely,
United States of America.


PS You must take Bush too.


lmao! Sorry, but that was wonderful.
Here's a better one though.

Dear Mexico,

The United States humbly requests that you negotiate with us the following terms: In order to slow illegal immigration, we will send all of the illegals back, along with the state of Texas, George Bush, George W. Bush, and 2.5 trillion Dollars.

Please respond as soon as possible, as this is an urgent manner.

Sincerely,
The United States of America

PS: DEAR GOD, PLEASE TAKE THE OFFER!!!!

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/



Oh yeah! Old redneck ladies ftw! Makes you wish Texas were still an independent nation.
Trespassing? Sounds like the lady was trying to get rid of a suspicious character. And she did -- without a single shot fired.

Is private property that rare in Denmark?

Dear Mexico:

We're sorry. Take Texas back.


Sincerely,
United States of America.


PS You must take Bush too.

Hell no, I don't want to be part of Mexico, that just be torture in a cruel and unusual way :(


*gets all serious*

Really though, anywhere north of Austin is Redneckia with a bunch of backwards, rude, and ignorant people who think they are elitist. My advice to all those traveling to my state, stay in Austin, San Antonio, or Corpus :)

Really though, anywhere north of Austin is Redneckia with a bunch of backwards, rude, and ignorant people who think they are elitist. My advice to all those traveling to my state, stay in Austin, San Antonio, or Corpus :)

A good portion of Houston is nice, but an almost-equal portion of it's a shithole. So long as you stay in the nice parts, it's fine. :p

A good portion of Houston is nice, but an almost-equal portion of it's a shithole. So long as you stay in the nice parts, it's fine. :p

Please, I've been to Houston, there is no way I would recommend that dump to anyone.

And I'll go ahead and chock up the same for the 1st Amendment as a result of your faulty reasoning being allowed. :rolleyes:

You are chocking it up as a pro of the first amendment? hmmm that does not seem at all consistant with the rolleyes

Please, I've been to Houston, there is no way I would recommend that dump to anyone.

The Clear Lake area is nice (well, for the most part), Dowtown's not bad, the Museum District is fine, The Galleria area is nice (just don't venture off into some of those neighborhoods), and Montrose has some nice spots. That's about all Houston has going for it, as far as city proper is concerned.

But metropolitan area is another thing. All of the satellite towns are nice, and have grown considerably in recent years. Kingwood and Tomball are perfect examples of this (I happen to reside in the latter). Katy's nice and all, but it's boring as fuck.

That said, I'd much rather live in the strip mall-covered outer reaches of Houston than in the city itself. And even still, I'd much rather live far, far North of here.

Her Property, her right to defend it.

:rolleyes:


Yeah, a guy on a cell phone. Suspicious.

You are something else.

This is a great example of how things have changed for the worse since I grew up. When I was little -- 8 to 11, or so -- we were wild all summer and whenever else we were out of school. Occasionally, our travels in the woods would carry us into some private property. One owner, in particular, didn't like us on his land. To discourage us from coming back, he had a shotgun and shells loaded with salt.

More than a couple of us would go home and complain that the old man was shooting at us. The response was "Well, what did you do to make him?"

The sad thing is that now, the question is more like "Why would he do a thing like that?"

Notice how the presumption of guilt changes...

The Clear Lake area is nice (well, for the most part), Dowtown's not bad, the Museum District is fine, The Galleria area is nice (just don't venture off into some of those neighborhoods), and Montrose has some nice spots. That's about all Houston has going for it, as far as city proper is concerned.

But metropolitan area is another thing. All of the satellite towns are nice, and have grown considerably in recent years. Kingwood and Tomball are perfect examples of this (I happen to reside in the latter). Katy's nice and all, but it's boring as fuck.

That said, I'd much rather live in the strip mall-covered outer reaches of Houston than in the city itself. And even still, I'd much rather live far, far North of here.

So, if I ever get a job for NASA, I should avoid the Johnson Space Center in Houston if I can?

Dear North America

We also would like Maine.:mp5:

FOR THE LOVE OF GOD WHY???????????? :confused:

Would it be just too difficult to say 'excuse me?'

This is a great example of how things have changed for the worse since I grew up. When I was little -- 8 to 11, or so -- we were wild all summer and whenever else we were out of school. Occasionally, our travels in the woods would carry us into some private property. One owner, in particular, didn't like us on his land. To discourage us from coming back, he had a shotgun and shells loaded with salt.

More than a couple of us would go home and complain that the old man was shooting at us. The response was "Well, what did you do to make him?"

The sad thing is that now, the question is more like "Why would he do a thing like that?"

Notice how the presumption of guilt changes...

I view that as a change for the better.

So, if I ever get a job for NASA, I should avoid the Johnson Space Center in Houston if I can?

The Johnson Space Center is in Clear Lake, which is a rather nice area overall.

This is a great example of how things have changed for the worse since I grew up. When I was little -- 8 to 11, or so -- we were wild all summer and whenever else we were out of school. Occasionally, our travels in the woods would carry us into some private property. One owner, in particular, didn't like us on his land. To discourage us from coming back, he had a shotgun and shells loaded with salt.

More than a couple of us would go home and complain that the old man was shooting at us. The response was "Well, what did you do to make him?"

The sad thing is that now, the question is more like "Why would he do a thing like that?"

Notice how the presumption of guilt changes...

Nothing says "No Trespassing" like a shotgun shell loaded with rock salt.

Well, the whole incident is a tempest in a tea kettle. Obviously, the old woman had the good judgment not to shoot the poor Dane.

In more rural areas, trespassing is taken far more seriously, especially if you're elderly and alone.

I have a place in rural South Carolina (a vacation home). The outside of the 250+ acres is fenced, and there are No Trespassing signs, but there's not much I can do about trespassers unless I'm on site.

Most of our problem comes from hunters who want to get on the land, and teenagers who want an empty house to party in. Both use vehicles (the house is a long way from the public road.

The road in through the property is my own private road. So I've taken to laying out spike strips on the road when I'm not there.

Over the years, one party of hunters and several carloads of teenagers have flattened their tires.

Nothing says "No Trespassing" like a shotgun shell loaded with rock salt.
Barbed wire and landmines do it for me, but each to their own.

Barbed wire and landmines do it for me, but each to their own.

Razor wire is illegal within the city limits here. :mad:

This is a great example of how things have changed for the worse since I grew up. When I was little -- 8 to 11, or so -- we were wild all summer and whenever else we were out of school. Occasionally, our travels in the woods would carry us into some private property. One owner, in particular, didn't like us on his land. To discourage us from coming back, he had a shotgun and shells loaded with salt.

More than a couple of us would go home and complain that the old man was shooting at us. The response was "Well, what did you do to make him?"

The sad thing is that now, the question is more like "Why would he do a thing like that?"

Notice how the presumption of guilt changes...

As it should have. To assume that the unarmed is instantly the guilty one is foolish. The presumption of guilt should always be towards the one pointing a gun at an innoccent unarmed individual.

Any sane parent would react with "WHAT?!?" when their kids told them a man pointed a gun at them. Interpert from that what you will.

As it should have. To assume that the unarmed is instantly the guilty one is foolish. The presumption of guilt should always be towards the one pointing a gun at an innoccent unarmed individual.

Any sane parent would react with "WHAT?!?" when their kids told them a man pointed a gun at them. Interpert from that what you will.

Trespassers are by definition not innocent.

Trespassers are by definition not innocent.

Uh....you totally missed the point. Trespassing is a crime, but in the US, we usually have this idea of not shooting people for very minor things that only grouchy old men and crazy red necks have any real problem with without a good reason.


And frankly if you see a few young kids or someone with a cell phone on your property and instantly think "They must be after my womnfolk and livelyhood! Better break out the boomstick!" then you are a paranoid loon.

Uh....you totally missed the point. Trespassing is a crime, but in the US, we usually have this idea of not shooting people for very minor things

And yet oddly there's laws on the books that let me shoot people for exactly that. Funny old world innit?

And yet oddly there's laws on the books that let me shoot people for exactly that. Funny old world innit?

Im not arguing if the laws are there or not. Im arguing they are idiotic laws and shouldnt be there, especially in a civilized nation.

Slavery was allowed once. Doesnt mean it was a good idea.

Im not arguing if the laws are there or not. Im arguing they are idiotic laws and shouldnt be there, especially in a civilized nation.

Slavery was allowed once. Doesnt mean it was a good idea.

Get the laws changed then. Until that happens, stay the hell off of private property. Otherwise you may end up with a load of buckshot in your backside.

yep. A friend and I were lost in another state once, she being from FL and me from OK, she said "lets just drive up that private road and ask whomever lives there for directions"

uh......no way.

She thought it funny that I wouldn't do it, I know better, private property? private road? I'm gonna get shot. That's how it works here. When I lived on an acerage, people knew not to tresspass. It's not that I don't trust the cops, it was that it would take them about 1 hour to get to me, and btw, they aren't required to protect me from anything.

And yet some people portray this as a good thing ...

Not trying to feed into the stereotype but up here I live about as rural as it gets and the worst that driving on someones private road for directions will get is an odd look and someone coming out to see what ya want ... unarmed

Get the laws changed then. Until that happens, stay the hell off of private property. Otherwise you may end up with a load of buckshot in your backside.

yep. A friend and I were lost in another state once, she being from FL and me from OK, she said "lets just drive up that private road and ask whomever lives there for directions"

uh......no way.

She thought it funny that I wouldn't do it, I know better, private property? private road? I'm gonna get shot. That's how it works here. When I lived on an acerage, people knew not to tresspass. It's not that I don't trust the cops, it was that it would take them about 1 hour to get to me, and btw, they aren't required to protect me from anything.

Trespassers will be shot. *puts up sign*

http://www.stickergiant.com/shoot-trespassers_xws11.html

I didn't go anywhere on my property unarmed......you just don't here if you live out of the city, there could be all kinds of wildlife and danger! :p

(I seriously didn't chase people off my land with a gun, not even once, but knowing that I could.....was a little bit of security.)

Trespassers will be shot. *puts up sign*

We have all kinds of dangerous wildlife about realitivly ... and I have firearms for those reasons but I don't normally carry them with me.

And for the most part what you have to worry about from strangers for the most part is kids in big trucks ... and I know how to take care of them.

(puts sharpened metal tubes in a 1x4) ... would not be the first time loosing a pair of 300 dollars a piece tires taught kids more of a lesson then any firearm would have.

And yet some people portray this as a good thing ...

Not trying to feed into the stereotype but up here I live about as rural as it gets and the worst that driving on someones private road for directions will get is an odd look and someone coming out to see what ya want ... unarmed

I didn't go anywhere on my property unarmed......you just don't here if you live out of the city, there could be all kinds of wildlife and danger! :p

(I seriously didn't chase people off my land with a gun, not even once, but knowing that I could.....was a little bit of security.)

Trespassers will be shot. *puts up sign*

The sad thing is that now, the question is more like "Why would he do a thing like that?"

That would depend entirely on the hypothetical landowner loads the shotgun with these days. Salt's one thing, ranks the same as a catapult with rubber balls, unless he shoots an eye out, then it's a different story.

Buckshot, or solid core rounds, on the other hand, that's a no-no.

Barbed wire and landmines do it for me, but each to their own.

No, this, is how you say no trespassing.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=FY-AS13fl30

Or if you want a creepier way of doing so.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=3ff_AXVlo9U

Ok, so an old lady who lives by her self in a rural area pulls a gun on a trespasser. Whats the big deal? Every that has a problem with this doesn't live in a rural area. When people are on your lawn and your home or awake and you don't know them, they're probably trying ti figgure out your habits, and when you're gone or asleep, they'll rob you.

Ok, so an old lady who lives by her self in a rural area pulls a gun on a trespasser. Whats the big deal? Every that has a problem with this doesn't live in a rural area. When people are on your lawn and your home or awake and you don't know them, they're probably trying ti figgure out your habits, and when you're gone or asleep, they'll rob you.

I am from about as rural as it gets ... I still find it unreasonable of the lady to pull the gun on someone wandering around and talking on a cell phone. I have never even heard of anything like that up here

I am from about as rural as it gets ... I still find it unreasonable of the lady to pull the gun on someone wandering around and talking on a cell phone. I have never even heard of anything like that up here

Um where are you from? I mean in Minnesota.

Urrg, even the word 'trespassing' makes me feel ill, I mean can't you just be nice to people rather than so damn anti-social?

She did not defend herself from any credible threat

It becomes a bad thing to bear arms when the person is unwilling or unable to distinguish credible threat against non

And until you determine whether the threat is credible or not, you should be armed.

Urrg, even the word 'trespassing' makes me feel ill, I mean can't you just be nice to people rather than so damn anti-social?

Seeing the kind of people that make up "society" my answer is "NO"

And until you determine whether the threat is credible or not, you should be armed.

Guy on a cell phone not an immediate threat there would be no need ... thats what cops are for ... no need for the woman to leave her house in the first place and without the guy immediately threatening there would be time for them to respond

Guy on a cell phone not an immediate threat there would be no need ... thats what cops are for ... no need for the woman to leave her house in the first place and without the guy immediately threatening there would be time for them to respond

1.Any stranger is a potential threat.

2.The police are under no obligation to protect an individual.

3. "No need for the woman to leave her house....?" Meaning that the presence of a trespasser effectively places an innocent woman under house arrest?

In essence she was simply protecting herself from a criminal. (trespass is against the law).

1.Any stranger is a potential threat.

2.The police are under no obligation to protect an individual.

3. "No need for the woman to leave her house....?" Meaning that the presence of a trespasser effectively places an innocent woman under house arrest?

In essence she was simply protecting herself from a criminal. (trespass is against the law).

1) True why increase your threat level by approaching?

2) Yes they are.

3) How is waiting in the house where it is safer until the police arrive to sort out the situation house arrest?

If her safety while protecting her property were her concerns she went about it the wrong way to optimize both

1) True why increase your threat level by approaching?

2) Yes they are.

3) How is waiting in the house where it is safer until the police arrive to sort out the situation house arrest?

If her safety while protecting her property were her concerns she went about it the wrong way to optimize both

1. To compel the intruder to leave your property.

2. The police are there to defend the peace of a community, not an individual.

3. She is restricted to her house (If she chooses to be. (alternately she could defend her property. See no 1.))

1. To compel the intruder to leave your property.

2. The police are there to defend the peace of a community, not an individual.

3. She is restricted to her house (If she chooses to be. (alternately she could defend her property. See no 1.))

1) which was not necessary in this case. And the actions of the stranger did not require it

2) In this case reguardless the two aligned as the law fell on her side, making her actions not necessary

3) Is it really house arrest if it is her choice, any more then choosing to stay inside when it is raining out?

Trespassing? Sounds like the lady was trying to get rid of a suspicious character. And she did -- without a single shot fired.

Is private property that rare in Denmark?


No, we just don’t go around pointing guns at people. “’excuse me, this is my house” usually suffices...



You know, sometimes you Americans seems way too paranoid. Every stranger is assumed to be a threat. Every stranger is assumed to be armed and dangerous. Every stranger is assumed to have a criminal intent.

Man, I’m glad I’m living in Denmark. Here, at least, I can actually ask a stranger for directions without fear of having a gun pointed at me… or worse…

[T]he cops [...] aren't required to protect me from anything.

In that case i'm beginning to see your point. But, i can only feel pity for people whose police force is not only inadequate (i.e. there aren't enough of them), but incompetent (i.e. they can't do their job properly) as well.

I guess doctors don't make house calls, either?

Seeing the kind of people that make up "society" my answer is "NO"

Ever thought that it's the 'American System' which perpetuates the near complete lack of social solidarity you guys have?

Also, why is it that Americans say they need weapons to defend their 'freedom', why can't they use weapons to prevent being economically exploited.

Also, why is it that Americans say they need weapons to defend their 'freedom', why can't they use weapons to prevent being economically exploited.

Because if you shoot your Ipod, you just end up buying another. :p

Because if you shoot your Ipod, you just end up buying another. :p

Well if their employer says 'sign this contract or your fired', why can't they with their workers take over the workplace with guns and run it fairly themselves?

Well if their employer says 'sign this contract or your fired', why can't they with their workers take over the workplace with guns and run it fairly themselves?

Corporate Piracy FTW! :D

The pictures:

http://gfx.dagbladet.no/pub/artikkel/5/52/528/528660/Terkel1_503_1204617973.jpg
http://gfx.dagbladet.no/pub/artikkel/5/52/528/528660/terkel2_960_1204617584.jpg

This will deepen the "gun-toting nutter" view that some Europeans hold.

Urrg, even the word 'trespassing' makes me feel ill, I mean can't you just be nice to people rather than so damn anti-social?
By and large, most people are. But there're no laws against bad manners.

Has it occurred to anyone that this is exactly why this IS a story? That this is the exception? Remember 'Dog Bites Man' stories don't usually get reported.

1.Any stranger is a potential threat.

2.The police are under no obligation to protect an individual.

3. "No need for the woman to leave her house....?" Meaning that the presence of a trespasser effectively places an innocent woman under house arrest?

In essence she was simply protecting herself from a criminal. (trespass is against the law).

1) Only for the paraniod.
2) Then what are their obligations?('To Protect and Serve')

1) Only for the paraniod.
2) Then what are their obligations?('To Protect and Serve')
1) Sometimes even paranoids have enemies...

2) There was a case some years back, where a couple girls were raped, maybe killed, in Boston, MA. One was able to phone 911, but no help came. The city was sued and it was decided that the police department has a general responsibility for safety, but no responsibility to protect any particular individual.

Or so I recall.

1) which was not necessary in this case. And the actions of the stranger did not require it
I would ask first.....but I would have my gun handy unless they weren't so nice.

2) In this case reguardless the two aligned as the law fell on her side, making her actions not necessary
this reminds me of my cousin's stupid reasoning, we were driving and a car nearly hit me, so I (being a defensive driver) got out of their way......

"it would have been his fault if he hit you! you should have let him"

yes, it would have been his fault, but that doesn't stop me from being smashed up does it?

when you are far away from the cops and someone you don't know and didn't invite is on your property, you need to be ready to protect yourself, even if the law is on your side, them going to jail isn't going to bring you back from the dead. It's general knowledge around here that you don't go on someone else's property, if someone was on my acreage I had to be a bit suspicious.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DeShaney_v._Winnebago_County
the police are not required to protect you, it's just not their job.

1) Sometimes even paranoids have enemies...

2) There was a case some years back, where a couple girls were raped, maybe killed, in Boston, MA. One was able to phone 911, but no help came. The city was sued and it was decided that the police department has a general responsibility for safety, but no responsibility to protect any particular individual.

Or so I recall.

And yet my bet is they would have been there if she had called

I would ask first.....but I would have my gun handy unless they weren't so nice.

this reminds me of my cousin's stupid reasoning, we were driving and a car nearly hit me, so I (being a defensive driver) got out of their way......

"it would have been his fault if he hit you! you should have let him"

yes, it would have been his fault, but that doesn't stop me from being smashed up does it?

Exactly ... if you go outside even with a gun and get shot before the cops can get there he might be in the wrong here as it was your property ... does not mean you are still not dead.

From a safty standpoint she made the wrong choice.

when you are far away from the cops and someone you don't know and didn't invite is on your property, you need to be ready to protect yourself, even if the law is on your side, them going to jail isn't going to bring you back from the dead. It's general knowledge around here that you don't go on someone else's property, if someone was on my acreage I had to be a bit suspicious.

When the stranger is not making a move to threaten your life in any way you have time even if you are far away from the cops

I am not saying she maybe should not have had the gun ready or that she nessisarily should not have been able to posess a gun but when the stranger was not making a move to harm her or the property she had the time to wait for the cops

If the strangers attitude changed and it appeard that there was imediate threat that is a different story all togeather

But by going out and approaching a stranger even WITH protection it INCREASES her danger not decreases it. It puts her within reach of a weapon that HE might have had as well.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DeShaney_v._Winnebago_County
the police are not required to protect you, it's just not their job.

Its to uphold the law ... which in this case was ejecting the stranger as private property laws fell on her side.

And yet my bet is they would have been there if she had called

Look up Castle Rock v. Gonzales and DeShaney v. Winnebago County.

Look up Castle Rock v. Gonzales and DeShaney v. Winnebago County.

Done ... still would bet money that they would have shown up if called

And yet my bet is they would have been there if she had called
I'm sure the raped women in DC (not Boston) thought so too.

Warren v. District of Columbia is one of the leading cases of this type. Two women were upstairs in a townhouse when they heard their roommate, a third woman, being attacked downstairs by intruders. They phoned the police several times and were assured that officers were on the way. After about 30 minutes, when their roommate's screams had stopped, they assumed the police had finally arrived. When the two women went downstairs they saw that in fact the police never came, but the intruders were still there. As the Warren court graphically states in the opinion: "For the next fourteen hours the women were held captive, raped, robbed, beaten, forced to commit sexual acts upon each other, and made to submit to the sexual demands of their attackers."

The three women sued the District of Columbia for failing to protect them, but D.C.'s highest court exonerated the District and its police, saying that it is a "fundamental principle of American law that a government and its agents are under no general duty to provide public services, such as police protection, to any individual citizen." [4] There are many similar cases with results to the same effect. [5]

4. Warren v. District of Columbia, 444 A.2d 1 (D.C. Ct. of Ap., 1981)
5. See, for example, Riss v. City of New York, 22 N.Y.2d 579, 293 NYS2d 897, 240 N.E.2d 860 (N.Y. Ct. of Ap. 1958); Keane v. City of Chicago, 98 Ill. App.2d 460, 240 N.E.2d 321 (1968); Morgan v. District of Columbia, 468 A.2d 1306 (D.C. Ct. of Ap. 1983); Calogrides v. City of Mobile, 475 So.2d 560 (S.Ct. A;a. 1985); Morris v. Musser, 478 A.2d 937 (1984); Davidson v. City of Westminster, 32 C.3d 197, 185 Cal.Rptr. 252, 649 P.2d 894 (S.Ct. Cal. 1982); Chapman v. City of Philadelphia, 434 A.2d 753 (Sup.Ct. Penn. 1981); Weutrich v. Delia, 155 N.J. Super 324, 326, 382 A.2d 929, 930 (1978); Sapp v. City of Tallahassee, 348 So.2d 363 (Fla.Ct. of Ap. 1977); Simpson's Food Fair v. Evansville, 272 N.E. 2d 871 (Ind.Ct. of Ap.); Silver v. City of Minneapolis, 170 N.W.2d 206 (S.Ct. Minn. 1969) and Bowers v. DeVito, 686 F.2d 61 (7th Cir. 1982).


Bet how you want, but there's no guarantee, nor any specific requirement that the police department respond in time to do any good. Not even 14 hours...

Bet how you want, but there's no guarantee, nor any specific requirement that the police department respond in time to do any good.

True but as the guy was simply talking on the cell phone there was plenty of time

If the man had been making truly threatning actions that could be reasonable construed as an immediate threat (rather then simply a possible threat) i would not falt her. (visibly showing the wepon ... walking around the back of the house or peering in windows or the like)

He simply was not ... nothing he was apparently doing was reasonable to rank him as an immediate threat therefore she had plenty of time to call law enforcement and let them handle the situation.

True but as the guy was simply talking on the cell phone there was plenty of time

If the man had been making truly threatning actions that could be reasonable construed as an immediate threat (rather then simply a possible threat) i would not falt her. (visibly showing the wepon ... walking around the back of the house or peering in windows or the like)

He simply was not ... nothing he was apparently doing was reasonable to rank him as an immediate threat therefore she had plenty of time to call law enforcement and let them handle the situation.
Like I said earlier, this is really the exception. Most people DO ask what's going on before pointing a gun at the trespasser. If it weren't the exception, then there wouldn't be nearly so much to do over it.

However, we can only count on law enforcement for a minimal amount of protection -- not blanket coverage. There's nothing wrong with being prudent.

Like I said earlier, this is really the exception. Most people DO ask what's going on before pointing a gun at the trespasser. If it weren't the exception, then there wouldn't be nearly so much to do over it.

However, we can only count on law enforcement for a minimal amount of protection -- not blanket coverage. There's nothing wrong with being prudent.

But even that minimal amount of pertection was not envoked ... not even tried as a first recorse (and as it is most likly the most safe option it would be reasonable to attempt that first without time being an apparent issue)

Since they were outside the very ranch that the President of the USA was currently in, we can safely assume that there were more than enough law enforcement officers in the neighbourhood to respond to almost any threat.

Since they were outside the very ranch that the President of the USA was currently in, we can safely assume that there were more than enough law enforcement officers in the neighbourhood to respond to almost any threat.

Apparently a retiree with a $20 Saturday night special was good enough to deal with this threat.

Urrg, even the word 'trespassing' makes me feel ill, I mean can't you just be nice to people rather than so damn anti-social?

People don't have the right to go onto other peoples property without permission. There's nothing anti-social about kicking someone off your property.

1) which was not necessary in this case. And the actions of the stranger did not require it

2) In this case reguardless the two aligned as the law fell on her side, making her actions not necessary

3) Is it really house arrest if it is her choice, any more then choosing to stay inside when it is raining out?

The last time I checked, most (if not all) of humanity hadn't developed the ability to read other peoples thoughts to determine their intentions.

And if you are unsure of someones intentions why purposfully approach them with our without a gun?

To find out what their intentions are.

The last time I checked, most (if not all) of humanity hadn't developed the ability to read other peoples thoughts to determine their intentions.

Yup but we are fairly good at reading actions and situations from time to time ... guy walking around in a suit talking on a cell phone does not scream high threat level when he is not even paying attention to you

And if you are unsure of someones intentions why purposfully approach them with our without a gun?

Yup but we are fairly good at reading actions and situations from time to time ... guy walking around in a suit talking on a cell phone does not scream high threat level when he is not even paying attention to you

And if you are unsure of someones intentions why purposfully approach them with our without a gun?

If someone's on my property without my permission, I'm definitely going to find out why. Maybe the guy was involved in an accident, walked to where he is on foot, and needs medical help. Maybe he's casing my house, to see if it's a place he wants to break into. Maybe he has Dementia or Altzheimers, and doesn't know where he is. Maybe he's looking for a dog that got loose. If I happen to have a firearm with me at the time, so be it.

just an innocent Danish journalist, huh?

No such thing.

probably looked like joran vandersloot (they all look the same) and a cartoon of the prophet mohammed in his pocket.

She should have blown his up to no good ass away.

If someone's on my property without my permission, I'm definitely going to find out why. Maybe the guy was involved in an accident, walked to where he is on foot, and needs medical help. Maybe he's casing my house, to see if it's a place he wants to break into. Maybe he has Dementia or Altzheimers, and doesn't know where he is. Maybe he's looking for a dog that got loose. If I happen to have a firearm with me at the time, so be it.

Thats actually an old ploy-carrying a leash while trespassing so you can claim you;re looking for your dog if your caught.

just an innocent Danish journalist, huh?

No such thing.

probably looked like joran vandersloot (they all look the same) and a cartoon of the prophet mohammed in his pocket.

She should have blown his up to no good ass away.
Not like the world is going to miss another reporter...

You people need seriously stop dissing Texas. The 2nd ammendment(Sorry about spelling) grants people the right to have guns. The old lady was a little extreme, but if a person wants to have a gun, they should be able to.

And for all you people who said to give Texas back to mexico or some crap like that, Texas is one of the most important states in the union. Much more important the places like North Dakota or Maine.

Sorry for the rudeness, but i don't like people dissing texas.

To find out what their intentions are.

Then the gun is not necessary ... if it is in question the smart thing would be to call the authorities they are capable of finding out what his intentions are as well ... safer for you that way

Yeah, the small towns here are... Bad, and let's leave it at that.

The larger cities, though, are mostly normal. Mostly. Though the accents can really begin to get on one's nerves.
I know a guy in Houston who shot his real estate agent.

She came in unannounced (she had keys) when she wasn't scheduled to be there.

BLAM!

Just winged her, though. She's fine.

District of Columbia's highest court exonerated the District and its police, saying that it is a "fundamental principle of American law that a government and its agents are under no general duty to provide [...] police protection, to any individual citizen."

People over here would be up in arms over a ruling like that... They'd demand a change of law, at the very least.

...does Billary sneak up from behind.

With stuff like that, it's no wonder that Americans are so respected across the globe.

Indeed.

People over here would be up in arms over a ruling like that... They'd demand a change of law, at the very least.
Yet another of the many differences between the people that left and the people that stayed behind...

Yet another of the many differences between the people that left and the people that stayed behind...

Do you not find it downright stupid that a organization whose motto is "To protect and serve" is not required to either serve or protect and could in fact just sit on their buttocks all day long, while getting money from the state you seem to distrust so much?

Do you not find it downright stupid that a organization whose motto is "To protect and serve" is not required to either serve or protect and could in fact just sit on their buttocks all day long, while getting money from the state you seem to distrust so much?
No, because they do exactly what you expect them to most of the time. I'm sure we could have enough police in every square mile to prevent nearly all crime in public places, but the loss of freedom would be unacceptable. The cost would be prohibitive.

Yet another of the many differences between the people that left and the people that stayed behind...
I really I hope I'm misinterpreting this when I see it as another (misinformed) Europeans hate freedom jibe, because as they go, it's pretty rubbish.

No, because they do exactly what you expect them to most of the time. I'm sure we could have enough police in every square mile to prevent nearly all crime in public places, but the loss of freedom would be unacceptable. The cost would be prohibitive.

That's a fairly rubbish argument. I'll explain why:

I stated that you're paying people to do nothing. You said that's exactly what you expect to do. If that is the case...

...then why are you paying them!?

I'm not advocating having a police state, I'm advocating having a police that is actually forced to perform their duty, whenever capable.