Passive Non-Compliance

Hey Pax:

Okay Kathy, let's get real here for a minute. You say you can't use a gun, use a bat, use any kind of "weapon" that might seriously injure a scum bag, (who is laughing at you while he is stealing your car radio right in front of you)???

Yeah, right... Like I am just going to ask him nicely to stop stealing my property. How bout this "PRETTY PLEASE stop stealing my property"....

I don't know about the laws where you live but here in Florida, I do believe you have the right to stop someone who is burglarizing your home/property. Maybe not shoot them but you still have some kind of right to stop the crime in progress. By the time the cops probably get there, this guy is long gone more than likely. Not only that, he will probably come back again as he knows you are a "WUSS" or chicken sh-- and you are easy takings.
 
Don't let the punk take your stuff!

Sure sounds like a lot of folks would just stand there twiddling their thumbs, waiting for the po-po.

This sounds like a forcible felony to me, where I think I have the legal backing to stop him with force. Not lethal force, but a tire iron on the shin would surely get his attention.

If I was a little old lady, the advice for taking pictures would be OK, but come on guys - man up and stop this punk from stealing your stuff.

Great idea too about shooting your own stereo so the BG can't use it :barf:. Maybe shoot your tires out while you are at it, so he can't drive away - sheesh, gimme a break!
 
OK, so I walk outside with my weapon and see this fine upstanding young citizen helping himself to my car's sound system. According to the OP's scenario, the "victim" (and he is a victim because his mother is a raging alcoholic and his father beats him on a regular basis) is aware that I am armed but yet refuses to comply with my politically correct request to cease and desist. At this point, I think it is fair to assume that the only reason someone would refuse to comply with the request of someone pointing a (presumably) loaded weapon at them would be because they either a)have a death wish or b)can stop me from using my weapon before I get the opportunity to use it on him in which case I AM BEING THREATENED.

Either way, I am willing to comply with his wishes.

Why did I bother to buy a gun in the first place, take a CCW class and diligently practice so that I can place 2 COM shots + 1 to the head if not to protect my life AND property and that of my loved ones?

I absolutely refuse to stand by and take pictures of some low life scum bag breaking into my car and hope that the police might eventually catch the guy and put him in jail for 90 days just so he can come back and do it again!

Scott
 
Bababooey, if the crime was committed moare than thirty minutes after sundown, you are correct, Code Section 9.42 would apply.

(Note to non-Texans: don't try this at home.)

However, you overlooked a key provision of the Texas Castle Law:

Sec. 9.32. DEADLY FORCE IN DEFENSE OF PERSON. (a) A person is justified in using deadly force against another:

(1) if the actor would be justified in using force against the other under Section 9.31; and

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

(A) to protect the actor against the other's use or attempted use of unlawful deadly force; or

(B) to prevent the other's imminent commission of aggravated kidnapping, murder, sexual assault, aggravated sexual assault, robbery, or aggravated robbery.

(b) The actor's belief under Subsection (a)(2) that the deadly force was immediately necessary as described by that subdivision is presumed to be reasonable if the actor:

(1) knew or had reason to believe that the person against whom the deadly force was used:

(A) unlawfully and with force entered, or was attempting to enter unlawfully and with force, the actor's occupied habitation, vehicle, or place of business or employment;

(B) unlawfully and with force removed, or was attempting to remove unlawfully and with force, the actor from the actor's habitation, vehicle, or place of business or employment; or

(C) was committing or attempting to commit an offense described by Subsection (a)(2)(B);

(2) did not provoke the person against whom the force was used; and

(3) was not otherwise engaged in criminal activity, other than a Class C misdemeanor that is a violation of a law or ordinance regulating traffic at the time the force was used.

(c) A person who has a right to be present at the location where the deadly force is used, who has not provoked the person against whom the deadly force is used, and who is not engaged in criminal activity at the time the deadly force is used is not required to retreat before using deadly force as described by this section.

(d) For purposes of Subsection (a)(2), in determining whether an actor described by Subsection (c) reasonably believed that the use of deadly force was necessary, a finder of fact may not consider whether the actor failed to retreat.
Click to expand...

In Bill's hypothetical scenario, the "actor" was not in the automobile at the time.
 
I've thought of this one a few times.

had to pull my weapon one night at end of drive just after rolling trash to street. it was the biggest possum ever and it shot out towards me from under the back of the car. He hissed and turned tail and I put the gun away.

If this scenario (brash car thief) happened on my property, I would probably do the following...

a) have wife call 911 and say someone is on the property destroying our vehicle

b) if time / situation permits I would go inside and retrieve 20 gauge pump

c) at a safe distance between the perp and my back door (in my case about
1/2 way down the side walk toward the gate), I would pump the mossberg
and simply level it at the perp.

My choice at this point is keep my gun leveled from a distance while being close enough to the back door to retreat if necessary.

That's my choice.

His choices are many and I cannot control. He could hear the pumping action and tell me to play with myself. He could hear it and wonder if the next sound was going to be the blast noise a shotgun makes. He could get up, come towards me and draw. He could gather his tools and vamoose off my property.

It doesn't matter to me. I'm on defense and I will not shoot him for car damage. Now if he charges me then all bets are off.

If the cops show up while he is knee deep in my car and I am 60 feet away with my shotgun, then my wife has identified me and my position.

The law will sort it out from there.
 
Why did I bother to buy a gun in the first place, take a CCW class and diligently practice so that I can place 2 COM shots + 1 to the head if not to protect my life AND property and that of my loved ones?
Click to expand...

I don't know, but do the laws of your state allow you shoot someone to protect your property? If you don't know, you might want to check into it.
 
OK, so I walk outside with my weapon and see this fine upstanding young citizen helping himself to my car's sound system. According to the OP's scenario, the "victim" (and he is a victim because his mother is a raging alcoholic and his father beats him on a regular basis) is aware that I am armed but yet refuses to comply with my politically correct request to cease and desist. At this point, I think it is fair to assume that the only reason someone would refuse to comply with the request of someone pointing a (presumably) loaded weapon at them would be because they either a)have a death wish or b)can stop me from using my weapon before I get the opportunity to use it on him in which case I AM BEING THREATENED.
Click to expand...

Scott, you evidently have not read the link I posted. It also appears that you didn't pay attention during your Missouri CCW class. You cannot point a gun at anyone (when you are outside of your domicile or automobile) unless you or a third person are in imminent danger of death, serious physical injury, or any forcible felony (felony involving the use or threat of physical force or violence against any individual).

And the only "requests" that you can lawfully enforce with a threat of deadly force, or with deadly force itself, are (1) that a perp not enter your occupied dwelling or automobile or (2) if he reasonably presents an imminent danger, that he stop advancing toward you or a third person.

The remedies (against you) are both criminal and civil.

Why did I bother to buy a gun in the first place, take a CCW class and diligently practice so that I can place 2 COM shots + 1 to the head if not to protect my life AND property and that of my loved ones?
Click to expand...

If you bought your gun to protect your property in Missouri, you might have gone to Casablanca for the waters ("Casablanca is in the desert." "I was misled.")

I absolutely refuse to stand by and take pictures of some low life scum bag breaking into my car and hope that the police might eventually catch the guy and put him in jail for 90 days just so he can come back and do it again!
Click to expand...

I suppose you could go out unarmed and try a full nelson, but I'd rather submit a claim. Safer.
 
I don't think you can shoot the guy with the gun, so what about shooting him with a camera?
Click to expand...

That's not a bad idea, if you're sure he won't then try to attack you.

(JOKING)

You could also call some big, tough friends to come and forcibly evict him from the vehicle, preferably in a manner painful and undignified to him. You could point a stereo at him and play the kind of music he likes least. (I recommend classical, Gregorian chant, or Muzak if you have it.)

I also might consider asking the hellfire-and-brimstone preacher at a good local Bible-believing church to come preach to the guy, or simply put on that persona and do it myself, but I don't know if you'd want to. (EVIL grin)

(/JOKING)

What you do *not* do unless he has a weapon and is threatening you is shoot him or threaten to shoot him. The life of any human being, even one that's behaving more like a cockroach than a man, is worth more than a piece of property. I'd say this regardless of whether the law would let you get away with shooting him or not; this is a moral issue, not a legal issue.
 
OldMarksMan said:
You cannot point a gun at anyone (when you are outside of your domicile or automobile) unless you or a third person are in imminent danger of death, serious physical injury, or any forcible felony (felony involving the use or threat of physical force or violence against any individual).
Click to expand...

That's not always true. There are places that allow for the threat of escalating force, including the presentation of a gun, even when the actual use of the gun would not yet be justified.


It would be perfectly justifiable to use a considerable level of non-deadly force to stop this guy, in most places. Slamming the door on his leg would be a possible starting place. Personally, I'd probably start with a camera. I'd possibly follow him when he left. All "possible" I say because it would depend on an analysis of the unfolding situation and surroundings.

Heck, I might even call my neighbors and say "Hey, come out here and give me a hand with this guy." In NY state, preventing a trespasser from leaving your property by use of force is legal.
 
Tie a rope (or better a zip tie) around his legs while he is working.
I have some of those 12 to 18 inch zip ties in my garage.
Now that he is immobilized, I could drag him out by his tied together legs.

Then pee on him.
HAHA +1 WildAlaska
 
Holster the gun & bust out the camera (w/ flash), or better yet, the high-capacity assault filming device, err, I mean the camcorder.

If he's not an immediate threat to you, or your family, and you assault him (and I would dearly love to slam the door on his leg), you will probably end up getting sued, losing your home instead of your radio - welcome to America.
 
It would be perfectly justifiable to use a considerable level of non-deadly force to stop this guy, in most places.
Click to expand...

Yes indeed.

My comment about not pointing a gun pertained to Missouri, where scottashulz lives. It applies in a lot of places, including Arizona, to name one.

One can use reasonable physical force to protect property in Missouri, but there's no protection against civil liability when you do that.

In NY state, preventing a trespasser from leaving your property by use of force is legal.
Click to expand...

Interesting. In most places you cannot prevent a trespasser from leaving, the reason being that such an act defeats the purpose of the law against trespassing.
 
OldMarksman, I know you are only trying to help and I really appreciate the fact that you are citing examples of Missouri law, but I think it all comes down to one's perception of what constitutes being threatened.

Yes, I know what the law says, but I gotta tell ya, if I see someone on my property that does not belong there doing something they are not supposed to do, I have a real problem with standing by watching them violate my rights and hoping that justice might eventually one day be served.

Scott
 
The reason for learning the laws and training is so that you can overcome that tendency to have a 'real problem'. If you think the best outcome is emotionally satisifying as compared to having the best rational outcome and consequences, don't complain if you do get into legal trouble.

One can have a real problem with lots of things - doesn't mean you can shoot 'em up.
 
I believe my game plan would be to stay put, with the gun still aimed at the guy. To be at my car, he's in the garage of my house, so his only way out would be through me. I'd verbalize any movement in my direction will be considered a threat and I will shoot. The guy either stays in the car until the cops show up or tries to come through me to escape, and I shoot.
 
Interesting. In most places you cannot prevent a trespasser from leaving, the reason being that such an act defeats the purpose of the law against trespassing.
Click to expand...

See? NY's not as backasswards as some people think it is... always.;)

35.20
2. A person in possession or control of any premises, or a person
licensed or privileged to be thereon or therein, may use physical force
upon another person when he or she reasonably believes such to be
necessary to prevent or terminate what he or she reasonably believes to
be the commission or attempted commission by such other person of a
criminal trespass upon such premises. Such person may use any degree of
physical force, other than deadly physical force, which he or she
reasonably believes to be necessary for such purpose, and may use deadly
physical force in order to prevent or terminate the commission or
attempted commission of arson, as prescribed in subdivision one, or in
the course of a burglary or attempted burglary, as prescribed in
subdivision three.

This person clearly falls under the "criminal trespass" definition which is different, at least in NY, than simply "trespass".
 
In my jurisdiction, you can never take a life in the defense of property. You may defend life only.

I don't know if suburban means that you there aren't any neighbors. However, if there are after calling the police, have your wife call the neighbors to see whether she can enlist them in keeping track of the culprit. Take your phone and stay within a safe distance if possible and stay on the phone with 911 and try to give them as much info as possible. If at all possible follow culprit whether on foot or in a vehicle, if you can do it safely. Also, the idea of a camera or camcorder is excellent if you can do that.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top