Woman arrested after shooting at marijuana eradication helicopter

[misshestermoffitt]

She was like 69 years old. She could also plead alzheimers onset and 1940's air raid drill flashbacks.

Politicians have a ready-lie for everything, I think this old lady needs a break too.

 

[GrowTech]

Youre not the odd man out... I'm in the same boat, I just don't believe in the right to own guns...

and with that said, I feel that they should be fair in how they try her, as she is almost 70, and probably has children and grandchildren who would be so heartbroken to watch her die in prison.

I think there are better people to make an example out of...

 

["SICC"]

Yea well think about this, if no civilian had a gun, then the goverment could easily to what ever they want, its self defence, no matter what, i mean if you wanna be pushed around If somthing like the Patriot Act happend, them by al means, dont buy a gun

 

[GrowTech]

plain and simple: it's 2008, we don't have to hunt & gather our food any more. no purpose in owning a gun unless you're in the military or law enforcement... go to the grocery store.

 

[misshestermoffitt]

Those that hammer their guns into plows will plow for those who do not.

The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government.-Thomas Jefferson

 

["SICC"]

Yes, nice qutoe i like that

 

[Florida Girl]

She was like 69 years old. She could also plead alzheimers onset and 1940's air raid drill flashbacks.

Politicians have a ready-lie for everything, I think this old lady needs a break too.

I'm going to have to disagree. Age is no excuse.... if she has Alzheimer's or other diagnosed dementia then family or care givers should have removed her guns long ago. God help the poor mailman the next time her dementia kicks in....

We don't give the elderly a free pass to drive drunk, rob banks or commit other crimes so it stands to reason she should not get off for attempting to murder people.

Prison may not be the place for her... but she should not get off without some sort of punishment and FOR SURE her guns should be taken away.

 

[misshestermoffitt]

Wasn't the cop chopper hovering over her private property? How high up does a persons private property go? How close does the cop chopper have to be before it is considered an invasion of privacy or trespassing? If they are hovering above private property snooping should they need a warrant?

This might work in our favor. Even 69 year old women are sick of their privacy being invaded for the sake of the "drug war".

 

[ta2drvn]

Ownership of property doesn't include the airspace above it and most of the time the contents of the ground below it either! Unless specifically granted to you and this is REALLY RARE.

 

[misshestermoffitt]

So you are saying that the cops can hover in their chopper 6 inches above your yard and be within the law?

 

[Florida Girl]

Wasn't the cop chopper hovering over her private property? How high up does a persons private property go? How close does the cop chopper have to be before it is considered an invasion of privacy or trespassing? If they are hovering above private property snooping should they need a warrant?

This might work in our favor. Even 69 year old women are sick of their privacy being invaded for the sake of the "drug war".

Honestly I don't know the answer to that.... although I suspect we do not own the air space above our property.

Can you imagine all the people that live near the 405 by LAX airport shooting at the VERY LOW flying planes as they come in for a landing, claiming trespassing on their property?

Anyway... it's a moot point because you can't murder someone for merely being on your property. If someone comes on my property I can tell them to leave and if necessary call the police to forcibly remove them, but I can't shoot them unless I am in imminent danger of being harmed or killed.

Again... my main point is that shooting at police/national guard is no way to earn public support for decriminalizing mj. If anything her actions set us back and give people the fuel they need to stoke the fire of lies about mj and the people that use it.

 

[misshestermoffitt]

I'm not saying it's right to shoot at them, no matter how funny I thought it was. I'm just trying to say where should the line be drawn on what they are allowed to do.

She hit them 3 good times, right close together at the age of 69 years old. That tells me that they must have been hovering pretty damn low.

Passenger planes landing at an airport really isn't the same senerio as the police hovering above your house in a helicopter, now is it? Nice try though.

Not to mention that if someone that is 69 years old is that sick of the cop choppers being over her property maybe they are pushing the limits a bit.

 

[happygrits]

ownership of property doesn't include the airspace above it and most of the time the contents of the ground below it either! Unless specifically granted to you and this is really rare.

land ownership is a spot on the earth from the center of the earth to infinity(that means air space as well) check any real estate dictionary
appurtenance means/is the right, privilege or improvement permanently attached to the land example of this are easements,trees,streams,natural,man-made,mineral rights,AIR RIGHTS(part of real estate),WATER RIGHTS(REASONABLE USAGE)

 

[Seamaiden]

I'm not so sure about that, happy. For instance, my folks live underneath the approach path to LAX for all flights from the east. Think they could get the FAA and TRACON to move that flight path, since it is pretty loud?

Ownership of property doesn't include the airspace above it and most of the time the contents of the ground below it either! Unless specifically granted to you and this is REALLY RARE.

It is indeed. We live in gold country, and mining/mineral and water rights are boilerplate in sales contracts.

 

[GreenSurfer]

Those that hammer their guns into plows will plow for those who do not.

The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government.-Thomas Jefferson

+rep

-GreenSurfer

 

[happygrits]

With mineral rights it usually passes with sale of land unless otherwise noted in a contract. Just another hat I wear real estate agent.

 

[ta2drvn]

So you are saying that the cops can hover in their chopper 6 inches above your yard and be within the law?

Don't know the laws concerning FAA, but the 'air space' at certain levels do not require permission and some do but generally speaking aircraft don't need permission to fly above your property. However someone can't put a power line over your home without permission commonly called an easement, but the city can zone or there could be deed restrictions on how high you can build structures, so in a sense I guess you do kinda own air space but it's not always clear how much.

 

[Seamaiden]

With mineral rights it usually passes with sale of land unless otherwise noted in a contract. Just another hat I wear real estate agent.

Interesting. I've only owned real property in California, and here mineral rights must be outlined specifically or you generally don't have them. This is the first place I've lived where mineral rights are a serious issue, so I'd assumed that was why it's boilerplate in the sales contracts. Water rights are another big issue that are handled separately on a contractual basis from mineral rights, as is any property designated timber preserve.

 

[Florida Girl]

She hit them 3 good times, right close together at the age of 69 years old. That tells me that they must have been hovering pretty damn low.

Not necessarily true.... depending on the firearm used a bullet can travel hundreds of yards. If the helicopter was 200 yards up (easily within range of most rifles) that is 600 feet.... and well out of the range of being considered a trespass on private property.

Hell I have Black Hawk helicopters buzz my house at around 75 -100 ft. (I live in a military town).... and I'd NEVER dream of shooting at them because they are 'trespassing' or possibly looking for plants growing on my property.

Passenger planes landing at an airport really isn't the same senerio as the police hovering above your house in a helicopter, now is it? Nice try though.

Nothing to do with being a 'nice try' as I wasn't arguing the difference between commercial planes and police helicopters.... I was arguing the validity of calling any plane flying low over your home a 'trespass'.... so my point stands.

Not to mention that if someone that is 69 years old is that sick of the cop choppers being over her property maybe they are pushing the limits a bit.

I seriously doubt law enforcement doing fly overs looking for mj are researching the ages or circumstances of the people who live on all the property they are flying over. In fact it's better if they don't .... that way they can't be accused of racial profiling or any other kind of 'singling people out'.

land ownership is a spot on the earth from the center of the earth to infinity(that means air space as well) check any real estate dictionary
appurtenance means/is the right, privilege or improvement permanently attached to the land example of this are easements,trees,streams,natural,man-made,mineral rights,AIR RIGHTS(part of real estate),WATER RIGHTS(REASONABLE USAGE)

SO NOT TRUE! You are quoting a pre 20th century legal concept "To whoever owns the land, shall belong the earth to its center and up to the heavens."

This no longer applies. A person only has the right to the airspace above their property that they can 'reasonably use'.

In fact, in the United States Supreme Court literally did away with that legal concept in US vs. Causby (1946). Read up..
The Straight Dope: Can I declare a "no-flight zone" over my house?

UNITED STATES V. CAUSBY, 328 U. S. 256 (1946) -- US Supreme Court Cases from Justia & Oyez

 

[happygrits]

Not necessarily true.... depending on the firearm used a bullet can travel hundreds of yards. If the helicopter was 200 yards up (easily within range of most rifles) that is 600 feet.... and well out of the range of being considered a trespass on private property.

Hell I have Black Hawk helicopters buzz my house at around 75 -100 ft. (I live in a military town).... and I'd NEVER dream of shooting at them because they are 'trespassing' or possibly looking for plants growing on my property.



Nothing to do with being a 'nice try' as I wasn't arguing the difference between commercial planes and police helicopters.... I was arguing the validity of calling any plane flying low over your home a 'trespass'.... so my point stands.




I seriously doubt law enforcement doing fly overs looking for mj are researching the ages or circumstances of the people who live on all the property they are flying over. In fact it's better if they don't .... that way they can't be accused of racial profiling or any other kind of 'singling people out'.




SO NOT TRUE! You are quoting a pre 20th century legal concept "To whoever owns the land, shall belong the earth to its center and up to the heavens."

This no longer applies. A person only has the right to the airspace above their property that they can 'reasonably use'.

In fact, in the United States Supreme Court literally did away with that legal concept in US vs. Causby (1946). Read up..
The Straight Dope: Can I declare a "no-flight zone" over my house?

UNITED STATES V. CAUSBY, 328 U. S. 256 (1946) -- US Supreme Court Cases from Justia & Oyez

Just quoting from my books i used post 9/11 these were real estate not law I guess alot of us a were getting out some frustrations. this icon reminded palin always winking