shootniron
New member
The laws only state robbery and in possession of stolen property and make no distinction of what is has to be.
What does that mean?
Last edited:
Defending 'lethal property.'
- Thread starter Maximus856
- Start date
The laws only state robbery and in possession of stolen property and make no distinction of what is has to be.
What does that mean?
The question that started this thread was about defending "lethal property".
The point is that no one has cited or even referred to any law that distinguishes between "lethal property" and ordinary property in terms of whether or not it's legal to defend it.
If it's legal to defend property then it's legal no matter what the property is, and, more to the point, if it's not legal to defend property then the fact that the property is "lethal" doesn't provide any special justification.
IF the lethal property is being used to threaten the citizen then the issue is no longer about defense of property but rather about self-defense.
Basically the entire premise of the thread is based on laws that don't seem to exist--or at least laws that no one can find or cite.
Until we can prove otherwise, I submit that it would be unwise to base a decision to use deadly force to defend property solely on the type of property stolen since it does not appear that there is any legal basis for making such a decision.
The point is that no one has cited or even referred to any law that distinguishes between "lethal property" and ordinary property in terms of whether or not it's legal to defend it.
If it's legal to defend property then it's legal no matter what the property is, and, more to the point, if it's not legal to defend property then the fact that the property is "lethal" doesn't provide any special justification.
IF the lethal property is being used to threaten the citizen then the issue is no longer about defense of property but rather about self-defense.
Basically the entire premise of the thread is based on laws that don't seem to exist--or at least laws that no one can find or cite.
Until we can prove otherwise, I submit that it would be unwise to base a decision to use deadly force to defend property solely on the type of property stolen since it does not appear that there is any legal basis for making such a decision.
California Penal Code 197
Homicide is also justifiable when committed by any person in
any of the following cases:
1. When resisting any attempt to murder any person, or to commit a
felony, or to do some great bodily injury upon any person; or,
2. When committed in defense of habitation, property, or person,
against one who manifestly intends or endeavors, by violence or
surprise, to commit a felony, or against one who manifestly intends
and endeavors, in a violent, riotous or tumultuous manner, to enter
the habitation of another for the purpose of offering violence to any
person therein; or,
3. When committed in the lawful defense of such person, or of a
wife or husband, parent, child, master, mistress, or servant of such
person, when there is reasonable ground to apprehend a design to
commit a felony or to do some great bodily injury, and imminent
danger of such design being accomplished; but such person, or the
person in whose behalf the defense was made, if he was the assailant
or engaged in mutual combat, must really and in good faith have
endeavored to decline any further struggle before the homicide was
committed; or,
4. When necessarily committed in attempting, by lawful ways and
means, to apprehend any person for any felony committed, or in
lawfully suppressing any riot, or in lawfully keeping and preserving
the peace.
So the use of deadly force may be justifiable when necessary to resist the attempt to commit a forcible and life-threatening crime, provided that a reasonable person in the same or similar situation would believe that -
(a) the person killed intended to commit a forcible and life-threatening crime;
(b) there was imminent danger of such crime being accomplished; and
(c) the person acted under the belief that such force was necessary to save himself or herself or another from death or a forcible and life-threatening crime.
The guy in the original post robbed the person and was attempting to flee... it appears California Law would allow shooting to stop him... that being it was a felony and he was attempting to apprehend the person for the felony commited.
Homicide is also justifiable when committed by any person in
any of the following cases:
1. When resisting any attempt to murder any person, or to commit a
felony, or to do some great bodily injury upon any person; or,
2. When committed in defense of habitation, property, or person,
against one who manifestly intends or endeavors, by violence or
surprise, to commit a felony, or against one who manifestly intends
and endeavors, in a violent, riotous or tumultuous manner, to enter
the habitation of another for the purpose of offering violence to any
person therein; or,
3. When committed in the lawful defense of such person, or of a
wife or husband, parent, child, master, mistress, or servant of such
person, when there is reasonable ground to apprehend a design to
commit a felony or to do some great bodily injury, and imminent
danger of such design being accomplished; but such person, or the
person in whose behalf the defense was made, if he was the assailant
or engaged in mutual combat, must really and in good faith have
endeavored to decline any further struggle before the homicide was
committed; or,
4. When necessarily committed in attempting, by lawful ways and
means, to apprehend any person for any felony committed, or in
lawfully suppressing any riot, or in lawfully keeping and preserving
the peace.
So the use of deadly force may be justifiable when necessary to resist the attempt to commit a forcible and life-threatening crime, provided that a reasonable person in the same or similar situation would believe that -
(a) the person killed intended to commit a forcible and life-threatening crime;
(b) there was imminent danger of such crime being accomplished; and
(c) the person acted under the belief that such force was necessary to save himself or herself or another from death or a forcible and life-threatening crime.
The guy in the original post robbed the person and was attempting to flee... it appears California Law would allow shooting to stop him... that being it was a felony and he was attempting to apprehend the person for the felony commited.
As much as I would agree with someone shooting a felon that just robbed a handgun to "defend others against the use of a weapon" you just can't justify it if the perp is trying to escape at that point.
One problem I see is where would the slippery slope stop?
If someone steals my car, and are driving away after the same circumstances as the OP, do you have the right to shoot them because they "COULD" use it to run over someone....no. Even though a car is a much more dangerous weapon than a handgun honestly.
What about a garden shovel? Do you have the right to shoot someone that steals your garden shovel because they COULD use it to kill someone?
How bout a valued ball of twine...it COULD be used to choke someone.
Lawyers would have a field day unfortunately.
I know I'm playing devils advocate, but you get the picture.
Now, if he happened to rumage through the bag and happened to turn and fire at you while running away...different story
.
One problem I see is where would the slippery slope stop?
If someone steals my car, and are driving away after the same circumstances as the OP, do you have the right to shoot them because they "COULD" use it to run over someone....no. Even though a car is a much more dangerous weapon than a handgun honestly.
What about a garden shovel? Do you have the right to shoot someone that steals your garden shovel because they COULD use it to kill someone?
How bout a valued ball of twine...it COULD be used to choke someone.
Lawyers would have a field day unfortunately.
I know I'm playing devils advocate, but you get the picture.
Now, if he happened to rumage through the bag and happened to turn and fire at you while running away...different story
.Just a wild guess, but California prosecutors may take an equally dim view of people shooting a fleeing gun thief as they would of private citizens going to a riot to fire on rioters. The way the statute is phrased, "necessarily committed, by lawful ways and means" would make me very leery of how it would be interpreted. It would seem way to easy for a prosecutor to decide that shooting a fleeing thief was either "unnecessary" or inconsistent with other statutes and therefore an unlawful "means" of affecting the arrest.
As JohnKSa says, no one has cited a statute saying that "lethal property" is treated differently than any other property anywhere in the US. That makes this yet another instance in which responsible people with concerns about self defense need to know the laws of the jurisdiction in which they live. "Lethal property" seems to be a category of our own invention with no separate legal standing, so know the laws regarding the use of lethal force to recover personal property if you are inclined towards such actions.
Edward429451
Moderator
Aguila Blanca,
Shutting me down for no citation? How closed minded of you. I thought I was very clear that I was not representing anything as fact or law, but presenting angle for debate, since there was none. People had touched on the morality of shooting a fleeing felon so gave rise to my post.
I would also make it clear to you Sir, that we are not in a courtroom, but on the internet discussion forum. Please go re-read my post and try to comprehend where I did not give legal advice, only food for thought.
You're jus' mad about that Miss Kitty remark.
Nevertheless, for kicks and giggles, I remember exactly where I learned this. This is what the O.P.O.T.C taught us in the early 80's as pertaining to where we stand as security guards with respect to shooting a fleeing felon. In this respect, security guards have no more authority to shoot a fleeing felon than citizens do. Which would require that the felony be personally witnessed, and of a nature so heinous that it would be a greater danger to the public to let him go than to attempt to stop him.
Just because I can not cite a statute does not mean that it does not exist in some jurisdiction. This would be an Exception listed with the statute and not something you could even expect them to advertise.
Shutting me down for no citation? How closed minded of you. I thought I was very clear that I was not representing anything as fact or law, but presenting angle for debate, since there was none. People had touched on the morality of shooting a fleeing felon so gave rise to my post.
I would also make it clear to you Sir, that we are not in a courtroom, but on the internet discussion forum. Please go re-read my post and try to comprehend where I did not give legal advice, only food for thought.
You're jus' mad about that Miss Kitty remark.
Nevertheless, for kicks and giggles, I remember exactly where I learned this. This is what the O.P.O.T.C taught us in the early 80's as pertaining to where we stand as security guards with respect to shooting a fleeing felon. In this respect, security guards have no more authority to shoot a fleeing felon than citizens do. Which would require that the felony be personally witnessed, and of a nature so heinous that it would be a greater danger to the public to let him go than to attempt to stop him.
Just because I can not cite a statute does not mean that it does not exist in some jurisdiction. This would be an Exception listed with the statute and not something you could even expect them to advertise.
TailGater, I'm not going to keep cutting an pasting here but will post a link and a small snip.
It is quite clear the robber commited a felony by robbing them using a firearm.
The robber was fleeing not only with the backpack with the handgun in it but the gun he used to commit the robbery.
So...
Felony Must Actually Be Committed
A private citizen may use deadly force to apprehend a fleeing felon only if the suspect in fact committed the felony and the person using deadly force had reasonable cause to believe so. (People v. Lillard (1912) 18 Cal.App. 343, 345 [123 P. 221].)
Felony Committed Must Threaten Death or Great Bodily Injury
Deadly force is permissible to apprehend a felon if "the felony committed is one which threatens death or great bodily injury. . . ." (People v. Piorkowski (1974) 41 Cal.App.3d 324, 328-329 [115 Cal.Rptr. 830]).
http://www.justia.com/criminal/docs/calcrim/500/508.html
Within that link is also a link to No. 509, Justifiable Homicide: Non-Peace Officer Preserving the Peace
I'm not saying he has to shoot him... only it appears that it is justifiable homicide to me as I am sure robbing you at gunpoint is considered threatening death or great bodily injury.
Let's be clear here... he is a robber using a firearm... a felony, not a thief which may or may not be a felony.
It is quite clear the robber commited a felony by robbing them using a firearm.
The robber was fleeing not only with the backpack with the handgun in it but the gun he used to commit the robbery.
So...
Felony Must Actually Be Committed
A private citizen may use deadly force to apprehend a fleeing felon only if the suspect in fact committed the felony and the person using deadly force had reasonable cause to believe so. (People v. Lillard (1912) 18 Cal.App. 343, 345 [123 P. 221].)
Felony Committed Must Threaten Death or Great Bodily Injury
Deadly force is permissible to apprehend a felon if "the felony committed is one which threatens death or great bodily injury. . . ." (People v. Piorkowski (1974) 41 Cal.App.3d 324, 328-329 [115 Cal.Rptr. 830]).
http://www.justia.com/criminal/docs/calcrim/500/508.html
Within that link is also a link to No. 509, Justifiable Homicide: Non-Peace Officer Preserving the Peace
I'm not saying he has to shoot him... only it appears that it is justifiable homicide to me as I am sure robbing you at gunpoint is considered threatening death or great bodily injury.
Let's be clear here... he is a robber using a firearm... a felony, not a thief which may or may not be a felony.
Error-net: legal issues; JDs...
I agree that this only a open source forum not a court room, but please bear in mind that to spout legal advice or laws is not the same as going to a atty or contacting a AG's office or LE agency.
As use of force expert & sworn LEO Massad Ayoob, www.MassadAyoobGroup.com states in his gun press articles; the "error-net" can get many armed citizens in a real slam.
I do not have a JD, that's why I suggest any forum member to do their own legal research or learn the state/local use of force laws themselves.
ClydeFrog
I agree that this only a open source forum not a court room, but please bear in mind that to spout legal advice or laws is not the same as going to a atty or contacting a AG's office or LE agency.
As use of force expert & sworn LEO Massad Ayoob, www.MassadAyoobGroup.com states in his gun press articles; the "error-net" can get many armed citizens in a real slam.
I do not have a JD, that's why I suggest any forum member to do their own legal research or learn the state/local use of force laws themselves.
ClydeFrog
insolentshrew
New member
In Tennessee, our law allows us to defend properly....but not with lethal force. We can confront the person/get into a scuffle match if necessary and try and force them to leave, and if the violator escalates things to where your life is threatened then you can use lethal force. This in itself is playing with fire, though. I don't think any state differentiates between normal property and lethal property. Even if you had the legal right to do so, I at the most might yell at the person to stop/I'm calling the police/etc. but no way would I get into a physical confrontation with them. I would take this as the "defender" looking for a fight, and if it led to a shooting it would make you look bad. Now if I yelled at them that I called the police, and they start coming towards me - its on like donkey kong.
As for the person that mentioned shooting a fleeing felon as to prevent future crimes, I have no heard of a state's law that allows civilians to do this. Some states their police offers are allowed to do this, but again - playing with fire. Unless everyone and their cousin can agree that the felon should have been shot at, that officer is going to be tied up in court for a long time. I remember reading an article where this happened not too long ago, but how it was written it came off as the officer jumping the gun in his shots on the fleeing felon. The only thing that saved his ass in court was that his state had a code for shooting fleeing felons, and it turns out the felon he shot had a criminal history including violence, but this was not known to the officer at the time he took the shots.....hence why it went to court.
As for the person that mentioned shooting a fleeing felon as to prevent future crimes, I have no heard of a state's law that allows civilians to do this. Some states their police offers are allowed to do this, but again - playing with fire. Unless everyone and their cousin can agree that the felon should have been shot at, that officer is going to be tied up in court for a long time. I remember reading an article where this happened not too long ago, but how it was written it came off as the officer jumping the gun in his shots on the fleeing felon. The only thing that saved his ass in court was that his state had a code for shooting fleeing felons, and it turns out the felon he shot had a criminal history including violence, but this was not known to the officer at the time he took the shots.....hence why it went to court.