***£££ thieves!!!

[duckman1911]

Originally Posted by MathGeek

That's one approach. I prefer flying under the radar. If I'm ever forced to shoot someone, there won't be folks telling the gov't that they knew I was itching to kill someone at the slightest provacation.

A layered approach to security also provides useful evidence and justification should force become necessary. Use of force will much more likely be ruled justifiable if the perpetrator has defeated physical barriers and alarms, eluded dogs, and is caught on surveillance video. Nothing like surveillance video to justify the use of force and show the perp to by lying in their version of events.

Of course, your attorneys should review surveillance video before other parties even know you have it. It is possible it might be in your best interests to lose it.

It was a bit more than "the slightest provocation". After a major disagreement I asked/told the guy not to step foot on my property. After that he proceeded to inform me that he would go wherever he wanted and do what he wanted. That is a direct threat and then he stepped onto my property while pointing his finger at me. Yep he ended up on the wrong end of a .45