Defending 'lethal property.'

[JohnKSa]

...if the BG were in my home, he is out of bounds and I would be justified in my actions.

Be careful with this.

The Castle Doctrine laws don't necessarily give a person carte blanche to shoot anyone who is found in their home. They simply shift the burden of proof to the state. In other words, they don't automatically mean a shooting inside a home is legally justified, they just mean that the state must presume that it is justified unless they can clearly prove otherwise.

If the circumstances of the case make it obvious that it was not justified (e.g. the attacker was obviously trying to get away when shot) or if a person's public comments or statements make it plain that they used or planned to use deadly force even if it wasn't required then the wicket can get sticky, as they say.

 

[shootniron]

JohnKSa

I totally agree with what you and the others are saying. I am not a vigilante, and I would in no way shoot someone in the back. I would,however, make an effort to inhibit them from leaving until LE could get on the scene. If in my efforts to do this, he turned on me, then it would not be good for him. And, in my original post, I did use "leaving" , which was a poor choice of wording, but I did not mean to imply that I would shoot him in the back.

Also, I think that it is easy to post what one would do on this forum, but when and if the situation actually arose.......the stress and emotion could make it a different story, I may honestly be so horrified that I would actually do nothing.

But, all of points made to me have been well taken and I appreciate what you guys have said and I will also give this alot more thought.....which I guess is the reason that I enjoy this forum as much as I do.

 

[Hiker 1]

Is "lethal property" even a legal term? If not, then the answer is absolutely 'no'. A car can cause a lot of damage, but it's still property and its theft does not warrant deadly force. The same would apply to a gun in this backpack incident.

 

[JohnKSa]

Also, I think that it is easy to post what one would do on this forum, but when and if the situation actually arose.......the stress and emotion could make it a different story...

One never really knows for certain, but I think it's important to have thought things through enough to have set up at least a basic framework to operate within.

In other words, even after thinking things through ahead of time and giving the proper consideration to the legalities involved, one may still not take the proper actions when under extreme stress. But if one doesn't think things through and doesn't consider the legalities involved before an encounter occurs, in my opinion, the odds of doing the right thing decrease significantly.

It's somewhat analogous to physical training. You can train extensively and still screw up when things go south. But if you don't train the odds of getting it right are pretty slim.

 

[Powderman]

In the situation described, we have no reason to believe that the BG had any intent to use force beyond intimidation.

I beg to differ.

By pointing a firearm in the direction of the victim and making it clear that the victim was the object of his attention, the BG was, at that instant in time, using deadly force.

While drawing against a drawn gun is a generally bad idea, if the BG had been shot at that time a claim of self defense would more than likely been found justifiable.

 

[ClydeFrog]

"lessons learned"...

For answers to legal issues or use of force, I'd contact your local PD or go to the PA state Atty General's office.
You may also want to check www.Handgunlaw.us or buy a 2011 edition of www.Gunlawguide.com .
Carrying loaded, concealed firearms off your person is never a good idea in general. As I've posted in other forums, guns are not toys, fashion statements or props.
I've read articles before about other armed professionals & private citizens who lost or had firearms stolen due to off-body carry methods.
One example was a federal sworn special agent assigned to provide EP/PSD(armed security) to the US Sec of HUD(Housing & Urban Development). The federal agent faced personal actions for repeatedly leaving his issue sidearm in a briefcase/office binder at meetings-events.

As for carrying a BUG or 2nd gun, that may work too but care/consideration needs to be given to proper concealment/deployment.
As a armed citizen, you need to understand the use of force laws too.
Even in a violent crime or attack, you can't be "Batman" or play superhero & chase criminals down. You are NOT a sworn law enforcement officer!
In a critical incident, you may need to use lethal force to defend yourself or others but you can't wait to chase people. Some jurys or DAs/State Atty's offices may not view your actions the same way as you, even if you are a veteran or are on active duty.

ClydeFrog

 

[Edward429451]

Even in a violent crime or attack, you can't be "Batman" or play superhero & chase criminals down. You are NOT a sworn law enforcement officer!

So cops are Batman? I'd be offended at that if I were a cop.

It seems to me that I remember hearing that one may shoot at a fleeing felon if certain criteria were met. You have to witness them doing a violent felony and the premise is that letting them go creates a greater danger to the public at large, than shooting at them and attempting to stop them. I suppose the thought is that criminals get more brazen with each crime and it would be more of a certainty of danger to public from the escaped criminal than the mere possibility of an errant shot doing damage.

If I recall correctly, I heard this in Ohio. It may be the case in some jurisdictions, or it may not be taught anymore, I don't know. Do not jump all over me calling me reckless, I am not advocating shooting people in the back. I merely offer this as another side of the coin for the debate. There was no debate going on anyway, just the chanting No No NO...

Never say never! Generally speaking as a rule I can see little or no benefit to shooting a fleeing felon. But at some point the nature of the crimes would exceed any possible common sense to let them go...I think.

 

[Stevie-Ray]

Never say never! Generally speaking as a rule I can see little or no benefit to shooting a fleeing felon. But at some point the nature of the crimes would exceed any possible common sense to let them go...I think.

I agree completely. I can think of many points, but they would involve "scenarios" that many here seem to abhor, so I'll refrain.

 

[youngunz4life]

I also agree with that

In my original post I deleted one other brief paragraph before sending. I stand by what I said, but there are instances - the example that came to my mind was a gunfight defending my family during a home invasion.

 

[ClydeFrog]

Sworn LE officers, armed citizens, documented use of force events...

To "Edward's" post;

No, police officers are not "Batman" but they are fully sworn and take a formal oath to uphold & enforce the law. Sworn LE officers are trained & armed(sometimes with up to 4 or 5 different weapons) apprehend & arrest criminals. Armed citizens do not have the same law enforcement powers or authority.
I recall a legal case in New Mexico of a USMC veteran who worked as a courier for a US government agency(the US Dept of Energy/Nuclear Reg Commission). A subject broke into the veteran's home, the armed citizen got a firearm & chased the criminal out of his house. The government courier shot the subject in the street by his house. The local DA's office filed criminal charges on the veteran/home owner due to the conditions.
As I posted, armed citizens have a legal right to use lethal force but they must be able to follow the laws & be able to justify their actions in court(and in a possible civil action too).
These are important factors to consider BEFORE you buy or use a firearm for protection/concealed carry.

 

[Nnobby45]

While perhaps a bit oversimplified, shooting a BG who has stolen a gun and is leaving the scene is not all that dissimilar to shooting a BG who has stolen a car and is leaving the scene.

Having demonstrated that he's a VIOLENT criminal by committing armed robbery in the first place nullifies that argument. The gun becomes stolen property than can be used by him or sold to another violent criminal.

What would you shoot him with if he's walking away with your gun. If you had a back up gun, then retreaving a deadly wepon that could be used against innocent people sounds more like the honorable thing to do.

However, where the law is concerned, it's an open question.

 

[JohnKSa]

Having demonstrated that he's a VIOLENT criminal by committing armed robbery in the first place nullifies that argument. The gun becomes stolen property than can be used by him or sold to another violent criminal.

I've never seen a law that gives a civilian special rights to use deadly force to retrieve a firearm from a violent criminal in the interest of attempting to prevent future crime.

In other words, if the applicable law in the area allows a person to retrieve stolen property via the use of deadly force then they could retrieve a stolen gun under the auspices of that law. Otherwise it's not going to be legal regardless of what the stolen item is.

However, where the law is concerned, it's an open question.

No, it's not an open question at all as far as I can see. Pretty open & shut.

If you use deadly force when it's not justified then you're committing a crime. I've not seen anyone present any evidence or cite any laws that make exceptions for the use of deadly force against a criminal who is leaving the scene with a stolen firearm.

 

[R1145]

The short answer is "no".

I think the only time one could make a case for using lethal force in the case of an assailant fleeing with property would be if one could justify an immediate and credible threat to others.

A thief stealing a bag containing a boxed firearm probably wouldn't meet that standard, but one knowingly in possession of a stolen weapon, who through words and/or actions have communicated they are an imminent threat to others, might meet that standard.

The main difference in lethal force standards between peace officers and others is that the law expects peace officers to seek out and capture criminals, while civilians are limited to self-defense. In fact, most case law and policies also limit peace officers to self-defense as well.

The best option is usually to be the best witness, call the cops, and set up containment.

 

[Aguila Blanca]

The robbery went without a shot fired and the BG's ran away, however they are now getting away with a weapon that could do harm to others. Does he now have the right to use lethal force? Or does the fact that they already have a weapon negate that? This is on the street and not on personal property. For the record, the police were called and the weapon reported stolen.

Military rules of engagement do not apply on Pennsylvania public streets.

The law in PA (and other states) allows the use of lethal force to defend against an imminent threat of death or serious bodily injury. If the theft is a done deal and the robbers are departing the scene, they are not an imminent threat.

You do the math from there.

The chances are very good that if this happened, it would be in my home.

No, they are not. The case under discussion took place on a public street. An incident inside a private home is an entirely different situation, it is not "this."

 

[Nnobby45]

If you use deadly force when it's not justified then you're committing a crime. I've not seen anyone present any evidence or cite any laws that make exceptions for the use of deadly force against a criminal who is leaving the scene with a stolen firearm.

Might not be a simple matter of "leaving the scene", since it's also a matter involving an armed criminal. You pull into your driveway and here's Bubba walking out of your house with your 870 attempting to leave.

Seems like a very threatening situation where the citizen is concerned (and one not of the citizens making). That's different from Bubba hot footin' it down the street with your gun inside a backpack.

 

[Aguila Blanca]

It seems to me that I remember hearing that one may shoot at a fleeing felon if certain criteria were met. You have to witness them doing a violent felony and the premise is that letting them go creates a greater danger to the public at large, than shooting at them and attempting to stop them.

If you can't provide a citation of the statute and the specific language, it's worthless. "I remember hearing ..." is not going to save your bacon in a court of law. It's especially unhelpful to dredge up possibly-remembered but non-specific "legal" advice when it doesn't even pertain to the state in question. We know that the question pertains to Pennsylvania. Even if you provide a citation to an Ohio law that says exactly what you think you remember ... it doesn't apply.

What would you shoot him with if he's walking away with your gun. If you had a back up gun, then retreaving a deadly wepon that could be used against innocent people sounds more like the honorable thing to do.

However, where the law is concerned, it's an open question.

I disagree. There is no question whatsoever ... if the robber is walking away, he is not an immediate ("imminent") threat and it is not legal to shoot him. "Honor" has nothing to do with it.

 

[Bubba in c.a.]

You snooze, you lose..

Ponder the difference between shooting in self defense and shooting a fleeing felon who no longer presents an immediate violent threat to you. A REASONABLE PERSON will say the robbery is over--you were second place winner and shooting a fleeing perp will get you jail time.

Look at the tapes of the OK farmacist. Shooting at armed robbers--good shoot.
shooting at fleeing perp--marginal shoot. Shooting at down unarmed, unresisting perp--murder. All 3 in one short tape!

 

[shootniron]

http://ypdcrime.com/penal.law/article35.htm

Excerpt from the above link...New York State

4. A private person acting on his own account may use physical force,
other than deadly physical force, upon another person when and to the
extent that he reasonably believes such to be necessary to effect an
arrest or to prevent the escape from custody of a person whom he
reasonably believes to have committed an offense and who in fact has
committed such offense; and he may use deadly physical force for such
purpose when he reasonably believes such to be necessary to:
(a) Defend himself or a third person from what he reasonably believes
to be the use or imminent use of deadly physical force; or
(b) Effect the arrest of a person who has committed murder,
manslaughter in the first degree, robbery, forcible rape or forcible
sodomy and who is in immediate flight therefrom.





What do you guys think about this......if you look around, there are provisions in many state's law for actions similar to this.

South Carolina has some similar language according to this link and excerpt.

http://scsenate.gov/archives/CodeOfLaws2001/t17c013.htm

Title 17 - Criminal Procedures

CHAPTER 13.

ARREST, PROCESS, SEARCHES AND SEIZURES

SECTION 17-13-10. Circumstances where any person may arrest a felon or thief.

Upon (a) view of a felony committed, (b) certain information that a felony has been committed or (c) view of a larceny committed, any person may arrest the felon or thief and take him to a judge or magistrate, to be dealt with according to law.

SECTION 17-13-20. Additional circumstances where citizens may arrest; means to be used.

A citizen may arrest a person in the nighttime by efficient means as the darkness and the probability of escape render necessary, even if the life of the person should be taken, when the person:

(a) has committed a felony;

(b) has entered a dwelling house without express or implied permission;

(c) has broken or is breaking into an outhouse with a view to plunder;

(d) has in his possession stolen property; or

(e) being under circumstances which raise just suspicion of his design to steal or to commit some felony, flees when he is hailed.

 

[JohnKSa]

Might not be a simple matter of "leaving the scene", since it's also a matter involving an armed criminal. You pull into your driveway and here's Bubba walking out of your house with your 870 attempting to leave.

Seems like a very threatening situation where the citizen is concerned (and one not of the citizens making). That's different from Bubba hot footin' it down the street with your gun inside a backpack.

If you believe he's a deadly threat to you then you can use deadly force in self-defense. The fact that he's stealing a gun from you is pretty much irrelevant at that point. It could be his own gun that he's threatening you with and it wouldn't matter.

In other words, that situation is not about defending lethal property, it's about defending yourself.

What do you guys think about this...

None of those laws make any sort of exception that give a citizen special rights or powers in the event that the item being stolen is "lethal property".

It's certainly true that the laws in some areas give citizens the right to defend their property or to detain criminals in certain, very limited, circumstances, but so far no one has cited a law that makes it legal to defend property that's considered "lethal" where it doesn't give that same right to defend any property regardless of its "lethality".

 

[ClydeFrog]

Gardner vs TN, use of deadly force; firearms...

I was also going to add the legal example of the OK pharmacy shooting/armed robbery. The robbery victim/property owner also claimed to be a USAF/Operation Desert Storm veteran but was later charged for his actions in the stressful & chaos of the event(s).
Im not sure of that incident's final outcome or case so I didn't bring it up.
I do often cite a critical event in the "space coast" Daytona Beach FL area where a armed robber ran into a small drug store, pointed a firearm at the pharmicist/mgr but was then shot & killed by licensed armed G/security officer. The armed officer was a retired LE officer & used proper methods-tactics. He was NOT charged by the Florida State Atty's office.

In closing, I'd add that many sworn LEOs are taught about Gardner vs TN, a legal event where a car thief was chased by police officers who saw him steal a vehicle. As the unarmed subject started to flee, the LE officers shot at him.
The upper courts ruled that the felon's actions did not justify deadly force. He ran away from the police officers and had no weapons they could see.

As many forum members correctly stated, deadly or lethal force can only be used to stop a violent crime. Some legal conditions may apply like on a US military installation or a corrections complex but those do not involve private citizens or private property.

Clyde F