I had Lojack installed. I would call the number, the tracking beacon would be activated, and the police would close in on them quickly. This would make it far more likely they'll be arrested and that I'll get the car back unhurt, since they tend to take them to drop points.
My car has just been stolen Can I shoot IT?
- Thread starter superfast61821
- Start date
- Status
The state you live in makes a HUGE difference in the answer to your question.
States like TX tend to side with the victim or intended victim of a crime.
States like CA, IL, MA, MD, and the District of Columbia do not.
Probably a matter of which part of society do the politicians most closely identify with.
States like TX tend to side with the victim or intended victim of a crime.
States like CA, IL, MA, MD, and the District of Columbia do not.
Probably a matter of which part of society do the politicians most closely identify with.
I say let the police do their job. They will have a vehicle description and license plate number to find your vehicle. In the mean time, if it's just your car that was stolen, no family members in the vehicle, just let it go. That is why you pay auto insurance. With the legal fees involved if you had to go to court, you could have bought a new Ferarri to replace your stolen car.
These states create a haven for criminals by restricting handgun ownership by responsible citizens. Their gun laws do not cut down on crime. DC is still the most dangerous place to live in America. They are in the process of allowing handgun ownership again. I wouldn't live in any of the above states for anything.
These states create a haven for criminals by restricting handgun ownership by responsible citizens. Their gun laws do not cut down on crime. DC is still the most dangerous place to live in America. They are in the process of allowing handgun ownership again. I wouldn't live in any of the above states for anything.
Stupid senario, IMO. Yes, in a perfect world we would all drive convertables with no locking doors and be able to leave the keys in the ignition. But let's face reality here: you don't leave your debit card at Best Buy with the pin number on the back, do you? Just because someone takes advantage of your grave mistake concerning property does not give the right to stop them with lethal force.
My CCW instructor made it crystal to the class you are only justified in shooting if your or someone else's life in in danger.
There's no way this is justified. You simply do not shoot except in defense of a life.
To me, it's common sense. You try to shoot out the tires, find out it's a repo man, you're charged with wanton endangerment, brandishing, and about a dozen other offenses. Thousands of dollars in legal fees, criminal charges, and a million dollar civil suit over a stupid car.
There's no way this is justified. You simply do not shoot except in defense of a life.
To me, it's common sense. You try to shoot out the tires, find out it's a repo man, you're charged with wanton endangerment, brandishing, and about a dozen other offenses. Thousands of dollars in legal fees, criminal charges, and a million dollar civil suit over a stupid car.
allenomics
New member
That would not be legal in Florida unless you feared immediate death of grave bodliy harm. And, firing a weapon is governed by laws that are not the same as CCW, so you'd probably face charges for discharging the gun. You'd be better off calling 911.
stephen426
New member
ISC said:
Please... If you have no clue what you are talking about, don't make yourself look stupid.
Since when did the castle doctrine give one the right to protect their property with deadly force? Deadly force is only justified when your life or someone you are defending are facing death or serious bodily harm unless lethal force is used to prevent it. The castle doctrine just gives you the right to do so without having to retreat when you are in you home or place of business. With the new law, you do not have to retreat, even if you are in public, before defending yourself with deadly force. This is of course based on the fact that you did not start the confrontation and that you have a legal right to be where you are.Please look something up before spouting off you opinions next time.
By the way, +1 on LoJack. If they are experienced car thieves, you might help locate a bunch of stolen cars. Professionals will usually leave cars in ramdom parking lots for several days to see if they are equipped with LoJack. Either that, or they will put the cars in containers and ship them off ASAP (usually to South and Central America).
Line Rider
New member
No, you can't legally shoot at the vehicle. The thief is fleeing and neither you nor anyone else is in danger. If you were to shoot and kill the BG or someone who would a grand jury and jury view the case when YOU left the vehicle running.
Stephen I found your comment to be rude and offensive. You could have made the same point without being an ass.
This is the Florida State statute that says use of force is permissible to stop or prevent a forcible felony:
http://www.leg.state.fl.us/Statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&Search_String=&URL=Ch0776/SEC012.HTM&Title=->2007->Ch0776->Section%20012#0776.012
776.012 Use of force in defense of person.--A person is justified in using force, except deadly force, against another when and to the extent that the person reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to defend himself or herself or another against the other's imminent use of unlawful force. However, a person is justified in the use of deadly force and does not have a duty to retreat if:
(1) He or she reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony; or
(2) Under those circumstances permitted pursuant to s. 776.013.
Here is the definition of a forcible felony:
http://www.leg.state.fl.us/Statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&Search_String=&URL=Ch0776/SEC08.HTM&Title=->2007->Ch0776->Section%2008#0776.08
776.08 Forcible felony.--"Forcible felony" means treason; murder; manslaughter; sexual battery; carjacking; home-invasion robbery; robbery; burglary; arson; kidnapping; aggravated assault; aggravated battery; aggravated stalking; aircraft piracy; unlawful throwing, placing, or discharging of a destructive device or bomb; and any other felony which involves the use or threat of physical force or violence against any individual.
I will admit that the situation as presented by the original post is not a cut and dried case of an imminent threat, but this:
crosses that threshold in my opinion.
BanditSRT8
New member
I don't think too many states allow for protection of property, only human life in the instance of grave bodily harm or certain death.
And to the guy in Fla... read the laws better before you end up in big trouble. The Castle Doctrine limits you to ONLY your home within its 4 walls, and they include an attached garage. The original poster's scenario played out in his driveway, and then as the car was driving down the street. In Fla he would not have been justified.
Also as detailed in his account... you cannot shoot a fleeing suspect for any reason whatsoever. Not at any time, not anywhere. Period.
And to the guy in Fla... read the laws better before you end up in big trouble. The Castle Doctrine limits you to ONLY your home within its 4 walls, and they include an attached garage. The original poster's scenario played out in his driveway, and then as the car was driving down the street. In Fla he would not have been justified.
Also as detailed in his account... you cannot shoot a fleeing suspect for any reason whatsoever. Not at any time, not anywhere. Period.
man I even posted word for word the exact statute. It doesn't say anywhere that it has to be in your home.
I'm not saying that he'd be justified shooting, I know I wouldn't shoot personally, but I am saying that he'd have a case to defend himself in court, especially if he could make the case that he felt threatened due to his guns being in ths vehicle.
My last post was an attempt to show that Florida statutes do permit the use of force to prevent a forcible felony, which includes carjacking, robbery, etc.
I did this in response to the guy that said force cannot be used to protect property.
Does that break it down enough?
I'm not saying that he'd be justified shooting, I know I wouldn't shoot personally, but I am saying that he'd have a case to defend himself in court, especially if he could make the case that he felt threatened due to his guns being in ths vehicle.
My last post was an attempt to show that Florida statutes do permit the use of force to prevent a forcible felony, which includes carjacking, robbery, etc.
I did this in response to the guy that said force cannot be used to protect property.
Does that break it down enough?
Keep in mind there are a lot of car parts that bullets like to bounce off of.
There have been several stories in the news (one in the past couple weeks) where police have fired on cars and the bullets have ricocheted and struck people (the most recent story the officer was hit).
Just another reason why its not worth it.
There have been several stories in the news (one in the past couple weeks) where police have fired on cars and the bullets have ricocheted and struck people (the most recent story the officer was hit).
Just another reason why its not worth it.
- Status