Okay, I guess we’re being serious here, so please set the Redd Foxx joke aside, and please elaborate on the “by right of capture” thing.
I think the OP made the situation difficult to understand by referring to the fox as “my fox” and “right of capture”. If the OP had called 911 and said there was someone trespassing on his property and when asked to leave he started shooting, there would likely be a much more urgent response.
Also, I assume there’s more to this story. I can’t imagine a 911 dispatcher EVER blowing off a caller when they say there’s someone with a gun. If the story did play out, just like it’s stated in the OP, IMHO, you should be filing a report against that dispatcher for not only calling this a ‘domestic matter’, but suggesting that they don’t respond to calls for help if they’re domestic matters. That’s…odd.
What the fuck are you talking about? You take these things and extrapolate them so far that have nothing to do with anything. You don’t want a guy on your property, fine. You want to use the fact that he’s holding a gun to give you reason to shoot him. Fine. I have zero idea why you’d think it be defensible to get your self driving car to run him down.
And if you shoot him, you’re also not riding on the bullet making sure it hits the target. You point the gun in his direction and fire the projectile. That seems awfully similar to pointing a car at him and dropping a brick on the gas pedal (or telling it to self drive).
If doing this was legal, I think you’d see a lot more people getting hit by unmanned cars.
Also, “And he drowned, the car didn’t kill him” doesn’t make any sense. You might as well cut out the convoluted car thing and just push him in the water. He drowned, you didn’t kill him, right?
And, since you intend to let him drown, you might want to check your jurisdiction’s Duty to Rescue laws. You might be on the hook legally to help someone if you see they’re in danger.
Just to be clear, this wasn’t “your fox” in any actual sense, other than it happened to be on your property when it got shot? Did you have any sort of interaction with this fox prior to it being shot?
Q: Are you sure that he has the right to carry a gun onto your property w/o permission?
( it’s weak sauce, granted. Still can’t believe that you called the cops, reported “shots fired” and the dispatcher responded with “Ho-hum. No cops for You!”. Something doesn’t add up. )
Also, my extremely limited knowledge of Right Of Capture as it applies to animals is that you have to have captured the animal. It has nothing to do with it just existing on your property.
That’s sorta what I was getting at. When the OP had time to sit and write out that post it didn’t make sense. I can’t imagine being on the receiving end of the phone call trying to figure out what’s going on.
It’s a perfectly good rant.
There was more to the conversation with the dispatcher, but it would have been a tedious post. She asked about trespass, any threats and if I thought there was any current danger to myself or the property. She had a list and once we cleared it the conversation was over.
The right of capture is interesting. It gets into things like air rights, water flow, migrating animals, resident animals and domestic live stock. When I lived in New Mexico it was complicated by private and community land grants, indian reservations and unique western water law. But, the fox was mine. Oh yeah, if you really want to get your feathers ruffled, check out air rights and mineral rights.
My fantasy equates very closely to the Rittenhouse case. The man is carrying a weapon whose only demonstrated purpose is to kill. He has fired it onto my property. I have reason to fear great bodily harm if he does it again. So, if he is present with the weapon and makes what after the fact can be interpreted as an aggressive move, I can stop him with force equal to that which he carries. I have a car which in gun discussions is often cited as an equivalent to a gun. So my force equals his force.
Of course it is absurd. But only as absurd as a 17 year old child deliberately loading 30 armor piercing rounds into the magazine of a semi automatic rifle, carrying it with him to a riot, where he plays (the kid was playing) the role of an EMT, engages in childish scuffles kills three people and walks away without even being criticized.
I was wrong. My fantasy is less absurd.
Yeah. Allegory was where my head was going …
Yeah, I wasn’t even sure it all actually happened at first, or if the OP was just driving home the parallel. The similarities are clearly there.
The fox story is true. The fantasy was just rant.
Good one!
Looking at this “Rule of Capture” (which is apparently what the OP is talking about), it appears that, if it applies at all, it probably favors his neighbor. The basic idea (IANAL) appears to be that if there’s a natural resource that exists on land owned by two different individuals, the landowner who first taps the resource owns the entire resource. So, if I’m reading correctly, if there’s an oil reserve under two different properties, the owner who first taps a well owns all the oil, even the stuff that’s not under his property. (I think this might have been the basis for that “I drink your milkshake” scene in There Will be Blood) The principle does apply to game animals, so it could in theory cover the fox, except the OP wasn’t making any effort to exploit the resource. The local fox population probably exists on both the OP and his neighbor’s property, so if his neighbor started up a fox skinning business, he’d probably have the legal right to kill foxes that live on the OP’s property. But, I’d guess, not to trespass on that property to get to the fox, and discharging a firearm onto someone else’s property seems pretty legally dubious, as well.
But probably none of that applies, since it appears the neighbor killed the fox thinking it was vermin, and not an exploitable resource. So the whole Rule of Capture thing is probably totally irrelevant.
That part aside “I can run this guy over in my car and claim self defense because one time he shot a fox in my yard,” is absolutely going to land you in jail for a long, long time. So my advise - and again, IANAL - is not to do that.
Did the OP bother explaining to the dispatcher that this person actually aimed and shot a firearm into their yard, or did they just go on about “rule of capture” and their fantasy Rittenhouse scenario?
Here’s a clip of that scene:
I thought that scene did a really good job of getting its point across, but damn I think that’s the creepiest delivery I’ve ever seen that contained a useful explanation of something.
You better hope your neighbor isn’t a regular reader of the dope. Now that you’ve posted this, if your neighbor is crossing your driveway as are getting into your car (say to go the the store), he’s justified in shooting you, since your aggressive moves towards your car made him fear for his life.
IANAL but that’s my understanding as well. If a wild animal is on your property you can claim ownership of it by capturing it. (And if you capture a wild animal and then release it back into the wild, you surrender your ownership claim by doing so.) But you don’t have any ownership claim due just to a wild animal living on your property. Any uncaptured wild animals are owned by the state government in which they live, even if it happens to be on private property.
If someone started ranting about right of capture I’d most likely assume it was some sovereign citizen bullshit.
Is there a fox hunting season in your state? Possibly the game warden would be interested, unless they are defined as vermin.
He didn’t enter into joinder with my fox.
This isn’t how it works in practice though maybe in theory. The first well drilled gets to produce all that it can even if that oil can be proven to be coming from a different property with different mineral owners but until the oil is produced (captured) it is still owned by whoever’s land its on. If the second mineral owner never does anything, like build their own well, then their property could be sucked dry (again not in reality). But you well can’t go on to their property and in most cases there are set backs for how close you can even get your well to their property.
Back to the OP your analogies suck and I’m not surprised that the cops didn’t show up because you were ranting about your pet fox being killed.
Nobody in the neighborhood gives a rats ass about this guys right to carry a gun. Sure we know about rights, but there are plenty of places you are not allowed to carry a gun. Of course the guy doesn’t give a rats ass about how we feel.
The police don’t give a rats ass about ‘my’ fox. Their concern was whether this guy posed a danger to anyone and whether or not anything they considered criminal was going on. I had registered that I consider him dangerous. That’s a yawn for the cops considering what they have to deal with.
Based on the Rittenhouse decision, I could easily place myself in a position to off the guy and claim self defense. However, I actually am a person of modest intelligence and caution so that is an unlikely event.
There’s an infinity of complications to rules/rights of capture. Like I said, I must have read it someplace.