Justified in shooting?

Z

ZVP

New member
Sounds simple but a lot of factors are at play!
I am disabled, heck a 9 year old girl could knock me over!
The other nite I just missed a couple punks trying to steal my Truck!
I awoke ans still sleepy didn't get dressed armed and moving fast enough to confront them!
When I got up they were gone due to the front porch light coming on and the screen door noise.
Now had I caaught them all I could justifilably do is hold them at gunpoint till the police got there.
Unless:
They moved against me to do me harm.
One or both displayed a weapon.
But what if they just tryed ti run?
Heck I couldn't shoot. I also am in such bad shape I couldn't tackle one either!
I'd have been left standing there with my Model 36 waving bye-bye!
Maybe it's best I didn't get out there or someone woulda got hurt or worse!
The trucks steering colum is wiped out but there's insurance to cover that
Maybe God had it planned right for my sake?
BPDave
 
Call 911.

Now had I caaught them all I could justifilably do is hold them at gunpoint till the police got there
Click to expand...

Kidnapping is a life sentance here and in other states.
 
Shooting someone is a life sentence, even if exonerated and ajudged "Justified". Best thing that could happen to YOU is that they run away.


Sgt Lumpy
 
Can the threat of deadly force be used to detain, if the crooks don't threaten?

That's a real corker!

May depend on your state and/or local laws.

Makes one miss the good ol days, when the choices were simple, when you caught someone was trying to steal your horse.
 
Shooting someone is a life sentence, even if exonerated and ajudged "Justified". Best thing that could happen to YOU is that they run away.
Click to expand...

Certainly depends on the jurisdiction, but by and large, shooting someone is not a default life sentence. You made a blanket statement that doesn't include variation of circumstance or state laws. Plus, there is no sentencing until a finding of guilt.

Kidnapping is a life sentance here and in other states.
Click to expand...

Also a blanket statement that isn't exactly correct. In Iowa, kidnapping can result in a life sentence if a Class A felony, not more than 25 years for a Class B felony, and not more than 10 years and $10K fine if ruled a Class C felony.

http://coolice.legis.iowa.gov/cool-ice/default.asp?category=billinfo&service=iowacode&input=710

http://kidnapping.uslegal.com/state...idnappingabduction-laws/#sthash.oolcL6gu.dpuf
 
Hmmm. I am not an attorney but it is pretty evident that no one else here is either. Most of the larger libraries have copies of that state's code; I suggest going to the library (not a quickie search on "the net") and read a few of your own state's laws on homicide, murder, self defense, citizens arrest, detention after an observed felony, manslaughter, etc. You might be in for a few surprises.

Jim
 
LOL, there is nothing wrong with the internet if you look of proper sites. Going to the library isn't going to yield information any different on a particular state's code than going to the state's own website and looking up the code there.
 
I don't like to tell others what they should or could do but I will say that will use a firearm to protect my life or the life of a family member. I will not use a firearm to capture anyone.
 
IIRC, in Tx it is legal to shoot anyone if they are in the middle of committing a felony.

One story comes to mind where the home owner shoots the bad guys as they are running away, kills one (maybe both, I dont remember) and no charges were filed because the bad guys were in the middle of committing a felony.

Maybe some Tx guys can jump in and confirm
 
Hi, 00 Spy,

True, and maybe I am old-fashioned, but internet searches tend to look up keywords and see only one section of the law. With law books in front of you, you can see better the interrelation of the laws and sections of the laws. It is pretty common for one section of the law to track to another, either supporting or even seeming to contradict another, and it is not easy to correlate everything you need to know using a web search.

Lawyers and researchers will use on-line searches to find the pertinent laws and do the preliminary looking, but I think they will all end up with a table full of open law books.

Jim
 
Sgt Lumpy has very wise words. He's not saying you'll go to prison forever. He's saying if you have to shoot someone you will personally live with that for the rest of your life.

He is right, the best thing that can happen to you is the punks run away and get caught before they can cause another crime. To that end, I recommend a good security camera.

If you hold them at gunpoint, in some states, it may be legal (threat of force is not the same as using force). However, it is an empty threat as you can't then shoot them if they decide to get up and run away.
 
You have to look at your local laws.
As far as I am concerned you are justified in shooting them. But I'm only concerned as far as stating my opinion based on my personal hatred for thieves.
The local law may come down on you very hard, even if they do come in and start beating the daylights out of you. Depending on where you are.
You also may have to deal with their gang, their friends and family. You can imagine the 'mommy dears' whining and crying about how their innocent little babies were such good kids.
So it probably would not be a good idea to shoot them (depending on your jurisdiction), even as much as I would like to see that.
But check on your local self defense courses and firearms courses.
dc
 
I think we can all take a lesson from George Z if there are any questions about when you might not want to shoot.

Sadly the laws in this country regarding use of deadly force to protect property need to change. In many areas they are pretty much ignored anyway. Even in California I remember during the LA Riot I was in Koreatown taking photos (and I had a pistol on my belt and a shotgun in my car) and nobody was messing with the Koreans on their roofs and in front of their shops with automatic weapons.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I think we can all take a lesson from George Z if there are any questions about when you might not want to shoot.
Click to expand...

Using this logic, then you could argue that any case in which the shooter ends up going to trial is a case lesson about whether or not you should shoot.

Then again, a bunch of people involved in such shootings are acquitted. No verdict in for the case you cite so it really doesn't apply here as due process is ongoing.
 
Isn't there the legal defense of disproportionate of force?
Multiple young criminals vs one disabled victim, whether they are armed or not?
 
text of the statutes is not enough

Getting back to reading the law at the library. I'm not an attorney, but I have some relevant experience. A lot (most?) of the law is not in the actual statutes, but in court precedents (case law) that expand on what is in the statutes. For example, the fourth amendment (statutory law) lays out general limitations on searches and seizures by government, but it is the case law that gives you the details, such as whether police can search a container in a car, etc. In addition, you have the issue of whether a case has been appealed to a higher court and has been ruled on. Those factors determine in what places it is legal to do a certain action.

I guess my point would be that when you try to explore the law on your own, you can easily come to wrong conclusions.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top