It’s become so that the only safe rule is to Zimmerman first, ask questions later.
A dead thug is far better than a bruised homeowner
Didn’t happen unless there’s a video. Plenty of cell phones out there to verify.
That the PROPERTY did not belong to Cruz or his supporters didn't matter to THEM.
To Marxists, all property is theft anyway.
Eric Holder's people will be RIGHT on this... < /sarc >
punks, my suggestion..hidden video camera, arm yourself well,
remove said signs or paint “f that, lying commies” on each one and when attacked draw on them. Hopefully they leave. If not they are likely to attack you anyway, you just chose your time instead of them deciding theirs..
Time to apply “Rule .303”
The stupid ass Cruz is running for Judge? What is placed on private property becomes a tool of the owner. I used to destroy home sale signs every week on a corner I owned and where the placers assumed was on the ROW (NOT!). A few complaints but when the law found out is was on my property, it was TS to the planters. If this had happened to me, the first thing I would do is to go armed with large caliber weapon before uprooting any sign on my property.
Taos hasn’t been the same since 1970, when Sam McCloud took semi-permanent special assignment with the New York City Police Department.
Were the signs on his property?
If they were, he had every right to remove them; if not then they were on either public property or someone else’s private property and that is a different story.
No one can put signs in my yard without my permission.
However, the city can prohibit signs on my boulevard (10 feet of my property between th street curb and sidewalk.
When cleaning up after the left, make sure you have the right tools with you.....
Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm
I wonder what the Mormon thugs will do to me whan I wont allow Romney signs in my yard...
>>>At the time of the incident, Cruz denied having any knowledge of anyone involved in the incident, saying that it was “unfortunate” that Cunnyngham removed signs that “did not belong to him.” <<<
If you put it on MY property it does belong to me, or at the very least, I have an absolute right to remove it.
In the artcle it keeps saying “in front of his property”. It doesn’t say “on his property”.
There is still no justification for a beating.
Yeah, Welcome to 2009...! Seriously Mr. Hoft "Are you paying attention, NOW...?" Finally...? (Warning Bad Language...!)
He’s Anglo, they’re Hispanic. Nothing new for northern NM where Anglos are very much in the minority.
“Officials with the Taos Police Department say they are still working to get to the bottom “
Translation: Ignoring it and hoping it goes away.
NM list PING!
I may not PING for all New Mexico articles. To see New Mexico articles by topic click here: New Mexico Topics
To see NM articles by keyword, click here:New Mexico Keywords
To see the NM Message Page, click here: New Mexico Messages
(The NM list is available on my FR homepage for anyone to use. Let me know if you wish to be added or removed from the list.)
Forward!
The story is a bit unclear. But it does seem the signs were either “on” his property or “in front of” his property.
In either case he had the right to remove them since the signs were illegally placed.
The usual rule is that campaign signs have to be “on” a persons property and cannot be on the “right of way” in front of a person’s property.
Liars, thieves and thugs are all that is left in the Democrat Party. Let one of those Democrat punks TRY putting one of their stupid signs anywhere near my yard and I will give them a well earned lesson in common courtesy and consideration for others. It will be a lesson they will not soon forget.
What begins?