I was robbed last night...

If you own or carry a gun and plan to use it for home defense, you need to read and understand the laws of the state you live in. Every state has different laws.

As far as bieng sued goes in Delaware, unless you are tried and convicted of a felony for the shooting, you have immunity from any civil lawsuit brought by the criminal person you shot or their family. Of course if you missed and the bullet hit a neighbor you could be sued for negligence even if the shooting was justified.
 
Master Blaster said:
As far as bieng sued goes in Delaware, unless you are tried and convicted of a felony for the shooting, you have immunity from any civil lawsuit brought by the criminal person you shot or their family. Of course if you missed and the bullet hit a neighbor you could be sued for negligence even if the shooting was justified.
Click to expand...

That the way it should be everywhere. Lowlifes that break te law and are found guilty should have no rights at all.
 
A lot to think about

Beauhooligan, thank you for sharing that experience. There are a lot of lessons in there for those of us who have never had to draw down, let alone pull the trigger on someone. I too took umbrage at some of your original presentation of the laws, but understood and agree with what you were saying - property is very nearly never worth killing or dying over. To those who didn't get it, here's a man who served in SE Asia and as a LEO (read: he's pretty far from being a metrosexual wuss), and still had a traumatic reaction to his being forced to shoot to protect his family despite doing everything right.

To whoever mentioned the horsethief hangings - in the old west a man's horse was very literally his lifeline - akin to someone stealing your jeep and your water if you were in the middle of the sahara. I'd shoot to protect my jeep and my water in the middle of the Sahara because without it I would likely die. The argument would be that taking the jeep or the water would pose a threat of imminent harm or death - but only in that situation. A quad and a weedeater - no matter how hard you worked for it or how much you love it or need it for employment even - simply fails the imminent threat test. Even in Texas, despite the law, at least IMHO.

To the OP - a LOUD P/A system piping a police band radio into your yard after you've told them to cease and desist at 140 decibels, together with some strong flood lights might have got them to run away. But that's prophylactic, and may not work, but certainly won't work if you don't awaken. You should probably be thinking more about preventative measures - like alarms or dogs with better hearing. A Rottweiler sleeping in the quad would have been a deterrent, i'd bet. But a confrontation? It might be a boost to the ego, and it might turn out all right, but you'd be needlessly placing yourself in a dangerous situation. There are too many ways you could go from being a victim in the right to a criminal breaking the law - even standing accused of murder - and devastating your life and your family. It's also possible you might be killed - all over a vehicle.
 
Beauhooligan, thank you for posting your expirience.

That does more to shed some light on what really happens compared to the fantasy some people have. Some people seem to have a fantasy that it's "glory and fame" along with feeling great and such.

Your writing reads like a Cliff Note version of "In The Gravest Extreme", by Massad Ayoob. That is a book I believe everyone that has a gun for self defense should read every couple of years.

I have posted against going outside to confront someone many times, but nothing I say will better exemplify this reasoning than your post. Take care of yourself and your family and stay safe.

Biker
 
Thanks for telling that, Beauhooligan. I would have agreed with you before you ever told this story that shooting someone over a theft alone simply isn't the right thing to do, but you sure explained why better than I could have. :/
 
There will definitely be a wrongful death lawsuit should you choose to confront a thief outside your home and end up killing said thief. Remember, in wrongful death civil suits only a majority is needed for an award.
Click to expand...

Sorry, wrong again. More than a few states have laws that protect the citizen intead of the scumbag. If the shooting is found justified, you will not stand trial for a civil suit.
 
Agree with other posters, make it difficult to steal your property and criminals will find easier targets. Locks, lights, changing your routine all help. Good chance this person has been watching you for a while, they knew what you had, what it might be worth, and where you leave it. They might even be one of your neighbors.

I'm not blaming you for your loss, but seriously, why did you leave an ATV and $500 piece of equipment outside and unsecured? Items like that should be in a locked shed or garage.

With regards to insurance, homeowners' insurance can be extended to cover all items in your house, but most agencies require proof that you have those items to discourage fraud. Proof is simple though; list the items on your policy, retain the receipts, and take pictures of the items including any serial numbers. With digital cameras being so cheap, it's a good idea to do that with any item you own over $100 or so anyway. Just don't store all the photos on your computer, lest it be stolen too! Burn 'em to a CD or put them on a thumb drive and put that somewhere safe. I keep a 16GB thumb drive backing up all my vital personal records in a locked drawer at a location outside of the home, and update it every few months. I like having it at an offsite location, because if there's a fire that destroys my house, I still have those records.


"What's the difference between a drunk and a drug addict? A drug addict will steal your sh*t and then help you look for it!"
 
Sorry, wrong again [(in saying that there will definitely be a wrongful death lawsuit should you choose to confront a thief outside your home and end up killing said thief. Remember, in wrongful death civil suits only a majority is needed for an award)]. More than a few states have laws that protect the citizen intead of the scumbag. If the shooting is found justified, you will not stand trial for a civil suit.
Click to expand...

Varies by state. In many, the fact that a shooting is found justified under the criminal statures will serve as a defense in a civil trial. However, unless there has actually been a trial and acquittal, that finding will effectively have to be made in civil court.

Some states also specify that defense costs will be borne by the plaintiff if the shooting is determined to have been justified.

However, except in Texas at night, killing a thief is not justifiable unless the encounter involved actual self defense, unprovoked, as has been pointed out above.

Much wiser to stay inside and avoid the very real risks of getting killed our maimed, investigated and possibly charged, tried, and convicted for manslaughter, and facing civil liability.
 
Hey, John .. my understanding of Texas law is that you are within your rights to shoot anybody stealing from you on your property ... I don't think I'd kill somebody over my old Miata ... just suggesting the law is on your side if you do ...
 
I have stated this opinion before and gotten flamed mercilessly for it, but I still believe and I will still stand by it.

1) I am not shooting, let alone killing, anyone over stuff. Stuff can be replaced whether covered by insurance or not. If it is valuable enough stuff it should be secured one way or another. It can be locked up, chained and locked, or locked inside of a building. Hell, when I stored my 1967 Mustang in the garage for long periods of time I removed the battery and locked the car INSIDE the garage.

2) If the BG is inside my house, 911 will be called, either by me or my girlfriend, as we move to arm ourselves. Once the call and arming ourselves has been accomplished, from cover, those 2 facts will be announced to the BG. If he chooses to stay and continue his treasure hunt, and does not attempt to enter bedrooms, he will leave my home intact. If he chooses to enter OR attempt to enter bedrooms then he may end up not so fortunate.

3) Deadly force, for me is used ONLY to defend my self, my loved ones, OR other innocent victims. Not to stop them from stealing my personal property.

I do not presume to suggest anyone else follow my guidelines. But I also expect that no one get huffy with me if I choose not to shoot and possibly kill someone over a car stereo or any other replaceable item.
 
our farm started getting visited at night so we started giving away free conabear traps with the free gas.:eek:

gave away 4 and suddenly they didnt want any more free gas.:)
 
Hey, John .. my understanding of Texas law is that you are within your rights to shoot anybody stealing from you on your property...
Click to expand...
It's not nearly that simple. Under certain circumstances, TX law allows the use of deadly force to prevent the loss or damage of property. However, even that much leeway is unusual in deadly force laws.

And, as pointed out, being within your rights doesn't mean that the course of action taken is wise, tactically sound, or proof from civil prosecution.
 
bikerbill said:
Hey, John .. my understanding of Texas law is that you are within your rights to shoot anybody stealing from you on your property ... I don't think I'd kill somebody over my old Miata ... just suggesting the law is on your side if you do ...
Click to expand...

Hey, John, you should take Bill's advice, sounds like he really knows what he's talking about. Next time you see a thief on your property blast'em! Bill will be glad to represent you I'm sure. :rolleyes:

There's a saying that goes something along the lines of, Ignorantia legis neminem excusat, or in english, "Ignorance of the law excuses no one".

A real PITA but very true.
 
Deadly force, for me is used ONLY to defend my self, my loved ones, OR other innocent victims. Not to stop them from stealing my personal property.
Click to expand...

My thoughts exactly. There is nothing I own that is worth me shooting, and possibly killing someone. If they are a threat to me or those around me, I will do what I have to, to protect myself and others.

If they aren't a direct and immediate threat, I will call the police, hope they get there in time, and whine and complain about the whole incident for a long time after, all the while glad I don't have somebody's death on my hands over a personal possession, no matter how worthless a human being they are.
 
Im sorry that this has happened to you, i have been robbed before to. My suggestion would be to invest in an alarm system of some sorts. What i mean by that is if you dont have the money for such systems like ADT etc., i would get security lights with motion sensors. There is also a cheap alarm out there that is tripped by magnents for windows and such. Things that are worked hard for should not be given up easily.

Originally Posted by bikerbill
Hey, John .. my understanding of Texas law is that you are within your rights to shoot anybody stealing from you on your property ... I don't think I'd kill somebody over my old Miata ... just suggesting the law is on your side if you do ...

What bikerbill stated is true, and guess im on my own when saying i would blast a person even if they were stealing a shovel. Because if it was easy the first time why not do it again. People learn in two ways "Trauma and Repitition".
 
Last edited:
Again, TX law does not state that you can: "shoot anybody stealing from you on your property". It is much more complicated than that.

There are CERTAIN circumstances that would legally justify shooting someone who is stealing from you on your property but it is a HUGE oversimplification to believe that shooting is justified by anybody stealing from you on your property.

It's far more accurate to say it's NOT justified and provide the exceptional circumstances that allow it than it is to say you're "within your rights to shoot anybody stealing from you on your property".

Here's the section of law involving defense of property. The applicable portions of the law take up about two pages of text and 500 words.

http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.us/Docs/PE/htm/PE.9.htm#D
 
...my understanding of Texas law is that you are within your rights to shoot anybody stealing from you on your property...
Click to expand...

My lay understanding is that under t if one uses deadly force against a thief under the the following conditions...

  • The act happens during the night, and
  • The actor reasonably believes that the use of deadly force is immediately necessary to protect the property, and
  • The actor reasonably believes that the proparty cannot be protected or recovered in any other way....

...and the actor can produce sufficient evidence supporting his contention that all of the above conditions did in fact exist, he may successfully mount a defense of justifiability from the standpoint of criminal liability.

It is also my understanding that there is no provision in the Texas code that protects the actor from civil tort remedies if force or deadly force is used to defend property.
 
Sec. 9.42. DEADLY FORCE TO PROTECT PROPERTY. A person is justified in using deadly force against another to protect land or tangible, movable property:

(1) if he would be justified in using force against the other under Section 9.41; and

(2) when and to the degree he reasonably believes the deadly force is immediately necessary:

(A) to prevent the other's imminent commission of arson, burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, theft during the nighttime, or criminal mischief during the nighttime; or

(B) to prevent the other who is fleeing immediately after committing burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, or theft during the nighttime from escaping with the property; and

(3) he reasonably believes that:

(A) the land or property cannot be protected or recovered by any other means; or

(B) the use of force other than deadly force to protect or recover the land or property would expose the actor or another to a substantial risk of death or serious bodily injury.
Click to expand...

Doesn't seem all that complicated to me. Seems there are fewer cases where deadly force is NOT justified in a property crime (i.e. simple theft during the daytime).'

9.42.2.A says I can act to prevent the commission of most property crimes or to prevent the actor from fleeing after committing most property crimes assuming I cannot stop them any other way, and the use of LTL force would put me in danger.

I just don't think it is as complicated as some wish it to make.

OLD MARKSMAN: The "theft at night" condition is one of many possible property crimes covered by the statute. Arson during the day is covered, as is burglary and robbery during the day.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top