It shouldn't be his comment that causes you or others to hesitate to ask a forum of people you likely haven't met for advice on such a serious issue. It should be the fact that it is a pretty big legal issue with very real consequences. A lawyer really should be the first stop. That's just my opinion, I guess.It is comments like that posted by Giovani that makes people hesitate to ask for help in situations like this.
It shouldn't be his comment that causes you or others to hesitate to ask a forum of people you likely haven't met for advice on such a serious issue. It should be the fact that it is a pretty big legal issue with very real consequences. A lawyer really should be the first stop. That's just my opinion, I guess.
I'm curious about something. You mentioned that the other neighbors have been known to put up tree stands on your property or facing your property. Thus, they are hunting and shooting toward your property. Correct? You also mentioned that your husband has stands on your property, so you all are hunting your property, too. I just wonder how this doesn't go both ways. . . Do you have backstops in place (aside from your firing range)? Are you calling the police about the other neighbors that you said yourself must be shooting onto your property (which would be likely even if they weren't shooting at something on your property if the deer on their property is between them and your property)? So, the point is that you are sliding down a slippery slope if you try to force him to put up a backstop. If he has to, then you should have to line your property in every direction your husband intends to shoot while hunting. Obviously, that would be a stupid requirement.
In most circumstances, a good lawyer (and they do exist) is likely to tell you to try to work things out with the neighbor or do what you need to in order to make your property safe against him unless he actually breaks laws or hurts someone. Like it or not, angering a drunken idiot with a gun could put your family at more risk. Yeah, you might be able to act in self defense, but self defense after a loved one is shot doesn't undo the shooting. I'm a big fan of prevention over reaction when it comes to dealing with the safety of my loved ones.
It shouldn't be his comment that causes you or others to hesitate to ask a forum of people you likely haven't met for advice on such a serious issue. It should be the fact that it is a pretty big legal issue with very real consequences. A lawyer really should be the first stop. That's just my opinion, I guess.
I'm curious about something. You mentioned that the other neighbors have been known to put up tree stands on your property or facing your property. Thus, they are hunting and shooting toward your property. Correct? You also mentioned that your husband has stands on your property, so you all are hunting your property, too. I just wonder how this doesn't go both ways. . . Do you have backstops in place (aside from your firing range)? Are you calling the police about the other neighbors that you said yourself must be shooting onto your property (which would be likely even if they weren't shooting at something on your property if the deer on their property is between them and your property)? So, the point is that you are sliding down a slippery slope if you try to force him to put up a backstop. If he has to, then you should have to line your property in every direction your husband intends to shoot while hunting. Obviously, that would be a stupid requirement.
In most circumstances, a good lawyer (and they do exist) is likely to tell you to try to work things out with the neighbor or do what you need to in order to make your property safe against him unless he actually breaks laws or hurts someone. Like it or not, angering a drunken idiot with a gun could put your family at more risk. Yeah, you might be able to act in self defense, but self defense after a loved one is shot doesn't undo the shooting. I'm a big fan of prevention over reaction when it comes to dealing with the safety of my loved ones.
You can't compare hunters with someone shooting trees across property lines.I'm curious about something. You mentioned that the other neighbors have been known to put up tree stands on your property or facing your property. Thus, they are hunting and shooting toward your property. Correct? You also mentioned that your husband has stands on your property, so you all are hunting your property, too. I just wonder how this doesn't go both ways. . . Do you have backstops in place (aside from your firing range)? Are you calling the police about the other neighbors that you said yourself must be shooting onto your property (which would be likely even if they weren't shooting at something on your property if the deer on their property is between them and your property)? So, the point is that you are sliding down a slippery slope if you try to force him to put up a backstop. If he has to, then you should have to line your property in every direction your husband intends to shoot while hunting. Obviously, that would be a stupid requirement.
In most circumstances, a good lawyer (and they do exist) is likely to tell you to try to work things out with the neighbor or do what you need to in order to make your property safe against him unless he actually breaks laws or hurts someone. .
Oh, don't get me wrong. I'm not saying you are in the wrong. I'm saying that the issue could turn and bite you in the butt. I mean, as soon as you say your part, your neighbor can say the "both ways" part and it could just lead to restrictions for the people that don't need them. That's what I mean by the slippery slope. Your husband may never shoot in their direction, but I have my doubts he can prove it. When you try to impose rules on one individual that is doing wrong, you have to bear in mind that the rule makers don't just take your word that you will be careful or that you are a good shot or whatever.
I don't give a crap about the laws on who is responsible for where a bullet lands. Laws aren't bullet proof. They don't protect anyone. If a loved one gets shot, try healing them with a law. Take comfort in knowing you are right, but not too much. Being right doesn't prevent wrong.
So, mom...
Any update on the situation?
Evidently you miss the very clear part that said, "Obviously, that would be a stupid requirement." The point is, once you start imposing regulations on one person, you don't get to ignore them yourself. More regs only inconvenience those that already play it safe. If you require a backstop in the direction one person shoots, then you would have to require them for the directions everyone else shoots. Again, that would be a stupid requirement.So, what you are saying is that every one that hunts needs to put up a proper backstop and wait for the prey to walk in front of it? That is how absurd some of what you have typed up reads
You do realize, don't you, that when the ground that serves as that backstop is on your property and not the hunter's, the bullet is still passing onto your property? Again, wasn't suggesting backstops be imposed. Refer to the part of the post that clearly states, "Obviously, that would be a stupid requirement."You can't compare hunters with someone shooting trees across property lines.
You do realize, don't you, that when a deer hunter is in a tree stand, the ground IS the backstop!?
You do realize, don't you, that when the ground that serves as that backstop is on your property and not the hunter's, the bullet is still passing onto your property? Again, wasn't suggesting backstops be imposed. Refer to the part of the post that clearly states, "Obviously, that would be a stupid requirement."
I didn't say she said anything about backstops for hunters. Are you even actually reading the post or reading a few sentences and responding out of context?This thread is mainly about the o.p.'s problem with her neighbor shooting up HER property.
The discussion of the other hunters is a side issue. No where has she said anything about requiring backstops for hunters.
It seems that you believe it should be HER responsibility to protect her property from Yosemite Sam, instead of Sam shooting in a safe manner at a safe backstop. Am I wrong?
And by the way, it DOES seem that Sam IS behaving illegally.
Return fire. You have the right of self defense.