Well that all depends on where your from reading the laws for your home states is the best way on finding out what you can do and can't do. Where you are from it may be illegal to put a whoopin on him but where I'm from if he is up to anything not good on my property I can whoop em and throw him in the ditch for the cops to scoop up and take to jail.
Passive Non-Compliance
- Thread starter BillCA
- Start date
Not entirely true.
I use diesel all the time to burn brush piles because it doesn't explode like gasoline does.
Gasoline evaporates very quickly and fills the surrounding air with fumes.
When you touch a match to the pile (or get a match close to the pile)... FOOM! a big scary mushroom cloud like explosion occurs.
Diesel fuel doesn't evaporate like gas does and burns more slowly.
Diesel ignites in an engine because of the high pressure and temperature.
And as a result of this thread, I am going out to get some OC spray.
It seems like a good idea to have some around.
Last edited:
OldMarksman
Staff
Antoher Real Incident
Something to consider.
Some months ago in New York State, there was a real incident along the lines of the scenario described
Before anyone jumps to the conclusion that the state in question is the reason, be aware that NYS is one of the very few places in which a non-sworn citizen can legally use deadly force to effect a citizen's arrest (under limited circumstances, of course). Not applicable here but intended to put things in perspective. You cannot do that in Florida, for example.
A law abiding citizen and licensed handgun owner want outside at night to investigate noises from some guys who were getting into parked cars.
A couple of them fled, but one approached the man. He fired, killing the perp.
The citizen said it was self-defense. No weapon was found.
The DA, who supports the right of law abiding citizens to have guns, filed charges of murder in the first degree.
The grand jury reduced the charge to manslaughter.
Back to the OP: there's the civil and criminal legal risk if things do go south fast, and I'm not fond of going out under the preconceived notion that the guy doesn't have an armed accomplice in the getaway car.
Something to consider.
Some months ago in New York State, there was a real incident along the lines of the scenario described
Before anyone jumps to the conclusion that the state in question is the reason, be aware that NYS is one of the very few places in which a non-sworn citizen can legally use deadly force to effect a citizen's arrest (under limited circumstances, of course). Not applicable here but intended to put things in perspective. You cannot do that in Florida, for example.
A law abiding citizen and licensed handgun owner want outside at night to investigate noises from some guys who were getting into parked cars.
A couple of them fled, but one approached the man. He fired, killing the perp.
The citizen said it was self-defense. No weapon was found.
The DA, who supports the right of law abiding citizens to have guns, filed charges of murder in the first degree.
The grand jury reduced the charge to manslaughter.
Back to the OP: there's the civil and criminal legal risk if things do go south fast, and I'm not fond of going out under the preconceived notion that the guy doesn't have an armed accomplice in the getaway car.
A_McDougal
New member
Is there a state that doesn't allow citizen's arrests, when you actually witness the felony occur?
For example: http://www.mdshooters.com/showthread.php?t=17276
For example: http://www.mdshooters.com/showthread.php?t=17276
Brian Pfleuger
Moderator Emeritus
It's not the arrest part, it's the lethal force to affect the arrest part.
Time to recap some of what we've learned.
As satisfying as it may be to get your "pound of flesh" for his damaging your property, the legal system does protect him (and everyone else) from excessive and unnecessary force.
- Passive resistance negates the implied force of a firearm.
- It also reduces your options in how much force you can legally use.
- Be prepared to use alternative levels of force at all times.
- As long as he passively resists, your use of force must be the minimum necessary to stop or apprehend him.
- Permanently injuring him will likely be deemed an illegal assault. Use caution in your application of force.
- Provoking him to violence may be viewed as escalating the situation so you could shoot him. Use care.
- You do not need to be polite, courteous or nice about your commands or application of force. But you must be within legal limits.
- If nothing else, video or photos of him in the act are always good evidence.
- It is unwise to attempt to capture - handcuff or tie him up - alone. It's better to drive him away.
- If you incapacitate him, you're responsible for his safety (i.e. not allowing him to suffocate, drown, etc.)
- The use of non-lethal and non-permanently injuring equipment is preferred -- OC spray, taser, stun gun, etc. - but only to enforce his compliance, not as a punitive action.
- Always look for his accomplice(s) and/or his means of escape (car, bike, bicycle, etc.)
- Know your state laws regarding arrests and using force to protect your property.
As satisfying as it may be to get your "pound of flesh" for his damaging your property, the legal system does protect him (and everyone else) from excessive and unnecessary force.
Wildalaska
Moderator
Sounds like a training sesssion for cops in handling civil disobedience...I think I will go chain myself into a porno booth to protest smut...
WildhellnoIdontwannagoAlaska TM
Makes me wonder...
...Where the original post falls, legally, in a Use of Force Continuum?
1) Offender has illegally trespassed on your property. You counter by telling him to leave.
2) Offender has broken and entered your vehicle. You counter by calling the police, who offer no useful solution.
3) Offender is burglarizing your vehicle. You counter by giving direct, forceful orders to cease and exit the premises.
4) Offender refuses to comply with your legitimate orders. You counter...how?
It would seem to me that the incident has escalated to the point of physical force usage at this point. The problem is, do you risk litigation and/or imprisonment by using "enough" force to ensure that the offender is unable to respond violently? Or do you play it "safe," and take the chance that you are overmatched?
In this situation, I would err on the side of it being better to be judged by twelve than carried by six. The problem is, if you let that creep walk off with your stuff, unless you have some sort of iron-clad evidence of your ownership of the stolen objects, once he's off the property (or in some cases even finished with the act of removing from your vehicle), it becomes a he said/she said court battle. It could be possible for the offender to even claim that you kidnapped him! And that you forced him, AT GUNPOINT, to pose for incriminating photos or video...
Sure, it sounds ludicrous, but that we have to actually concern ourselves with such a patently silly situation in the first place pretty well illuminates the corner we've been painted into, societally.
I wouldn't shoot unless my person was threatened, but I certainly would call 911, inform them that I was in the process of apprehending a criminal on my premises and then put the phone on speaker. Then, at least, the entirety of the incident would be recorded and there could be no question that I made every effort to resolve the issue non-lethally. Additionally, if it goes horribly south, medical help could be readily summoned by the operator. From there, it's a crapshoot. There are just too many variables to predict how it would play out. I can play the "What if" game all night on this one (it's a LULU!), but it's all just supposition.
I guess any and/or all of the solutions offered COULD be necessary, but as to which way I'd go on a given day, who can tell?
Sorry that it's not the answer the OP was looking for, but it's the only I've got right now.
P.S.--All that talk about biological warfare in the car...I would report that as W.A.D.'s...Weapon of A$$ Destruction!!!
...Where the original post falls, legally, in a Use of Force Continuum?
1) Offender has illegally trespassed on your property. You counter by telling him to leave.
2) Offender has broken and entered your vehicle. You counter by calling the police, who offer no useful solution.
3) Offender is burglarizing your vehicle. You counter by giving direct, forceful orders to cease and exit the premises.
4) Offender refuses to comply with your legitimate orders. You counter...how?
It would seem to me that the incident has escalated to the point of physical force usage at this point. The problem is, do you risk litigation and/or imprisonment by using "enough" force to ensure that the offender is unable to respond violently? Or do you play it "safe," and take the chance that you are overmatched?
In this situation, I would err on the side of it being better to be judged by twelve than carried by six. The problem is, if you let that creep walk off with your stuff, unless you have some sort of iron-clad evidence of your ownership of the stolen objects, once he's off the property (or in some cases even finished with the act of removing from your vehicle), it becomes a he said/she said court battle. It could be possible for the offender to even claim that you kidnapped him! And that you forced him, AT GUNPOINT, to pose for incriminating photos or video...
Sure, it sounds ludicrous, but that we have to actually concern ourselves with such a patently silly situation in the first place pretty well illuminates the corner we've been painted into, societally.
I wouldn't shoot unless my person was threatened, but I certainly would call 911, inform them that I was in the process of apprehending a criminal on my premises and then put the phone on speaker. Then, at least, the entirety of the incident would be recorded and there could be no question that I made every effort to resolve the issue non-lethally. Additionally, if it goes horribly south, medical help could be readily summoned by the operator. From there, it's a crapshoot. There are just too many variables to predict how it would play out. I can play the "What if" game all night on this one (it's a LULU!), but it's all just supposition.
I guess any and/or all of the solutions offered COULD be necessary, but as to which way I'd go on a given day, who can tell?
Sorry that it's not the answer the OP was looking for, but it's the only I've got right now.
P.S.--All that talk about biological warfare in the car...I would report that as W.A.D.'s...Weapon of A$$ Destruction!!!
Michael Anthony
New member
If we had some way of rating users Bill, you'd get 230489 Kudocookiefwobs for a thread well done and particularly your last post.
It's amazing how common sense seems like fresh air. Nothing common about common sense right?
I would agree that OC is the most realistic, legal and effective means of getting involved for the majority of people.
Unarmed or hands-on combat is a distant second for most people in my humble opinion. This is based on the probability that he is armed or could improvise a weapon quickly coupled with the requirement to be proficient and confident in your ability.
Both would satisfy your urge to act and meet most legal requirements. In my state you can use a reasonable amount of force to make a citizens arrest. If the situation develops into one requiring deadly force, so long as your actions leading up to it were all legal, you could successfully defend yourself in court against any accusations that you were "party to the difficulty."
It's amazing how common sense seems like fresh air. Nothing common about common sense right?
I would agree that OC is the most realistic, legal and effective means of getting involved for the majority of people.
Unarmed or hands-on combat is a distant second for most people in my humble opinion. This is based on the probability that he is armed or could improvise a weapon quickly coupled with the requirement to be proficient and confident in your ability.
Both would satisfy your urge to act and meet most legal requirements. In my state you can use a reasonable amount of force to make a citizens arrest. If the situation develops into one requiring deadly force, so long as your actions leading up to it were all legal, you could successfully defend yourself in court against any accusations that you were "party to the difficulty."
BikerRN gets my vote for the most rational solution. Post #81.
I agree with it so I might be biased. But in terms of "rational," you have to agree that it's free from emotion, and many of the proposed solutions were emotional, not rational.
For example, a thief breaks into your car, the solution is not to stink it up. Isn't that a tad counter-productive? Haven't you just made a bad situation worse? Your car is being broken into and now you make it undriveable (for at least a period of time). Wouldn't people be asking you "What were you thinking?"
In terms of legalities, it's quite clear that the thief has you dead to rights, so to speak. You don't like it? Persuade your legislature to change the rules. This is a democracy, and the majority makes the rules. If you don't like that, so sorry.
If you don't want to follow BikerRN's advice, and if you don't want to crap up your car, the way I see it, you have limited choices:
1. Let's get this one out of the way right up front. Just shoot the guy a soon as he gets out of the car. Lie like hell and testify that he was about to attack you and you feared for your life. If you do a good enough job, and the cops don't investigate adequately to uncover any discrepancies in your story, not only will you not be charged but you will also beat the thief at his own game--you become the bigger criminal.
2. Use some kind of force that the thief finds unpleasant but (a) doesn't damage your car further and (b) is not considered, in the light of 20-20 hindsight, to have been an unreasonable application of force. Zip ties around the ankles has some appeal. Of course, this can be a bit tricky, what with having to use two hands for the zip ties, and of course, having to come closer to the thief, who so far isn't being cooperative. And you have to hope he doesn't have a look-out for the cops who comes to his aid. Or the thief might be as tough as hogdogs or you might be just as much a candy-ass as I am.
One poster said: "Just for idle speculation, though, I wonder what the scummie's reaction would be if you doused him with flamable liquid, stepped back and let him hear the 'ker-clink' of snapping your Zippo open." Technically that could be a battery (in most states) and possibly a terroristic threat, which in CA can be treated as a felony. But amusing to contemplate.
OTOH, a stun gun while he's in the car might be workable. And pepper spray outside the car is also worthy of consideration. (For you, that is. For me, I'll be dialing, whiling away the time (Mossberg 500 by my side), and filing with the insurance company.) I might also be filing a complaint with the PD about the slow response to a crime in progress.
3. Effect a citizen's arrest using reasonable force. Get it right, you just saved your deductible and you're a hero! If necessary to defend yourself, you might be privileged to use deadly force to protect yourself while effecting the arrest. Keep in mind that this is not a variant of 1 above. This option assumes that you legitimately try to restrain him physically and he in fact starts to get the upper hand and you honestly and reasonably believe that you are in danger of being killed or suffering great bodily injury. For me, this is way too complicated to analyze on the spot. Get it wrong and you've just bought into a jackpot. From hero to zero in the time it takes to pull a trigger.
Oh, and just to make it a bit more tricky, state laws can vary on this point. Unlike peace officers, in most states, citizens have immunity for a wrongful arrest, and if you use unreasonable force, you might face criminal charges for battery. Doing so while armed with a handgun in CA, even though it is not used in the offense, can be a big, fat sentence enhancement. You could end up doing way more time than the thief.
4. Just physically harm the guy as you see fit. Now re-read the last sentence of 3 above.
5. As one poster note, what about the thief's car? He had to get there someway. If it's parked nearby, you could get the license plate number.
For the most imaginative solution, I like Trooper Tyree's throw-down gun plan.
My small contribution to the solution would be to train my wife to say something different. Something like: "Honey, the police are on their way and they'll be here in a few minutes. I told them that he was kicking some cop's ass for pulling him over."
It might not be legal for her to misreport, but there's nothing illegal about her making the thief think she did so.
I agree with it so I might be biased. But in terms of "rational," you have to agree that it's free from emotion, and many of the proposed solutions were emotional, not rational.
For example, a thief breaks into your car, the solution is not to stink it up. Isn't that a tad counter-productive? Haven't you just made a bad situation worse? Your car is being broken into and now you make it undriveable (for at least a period of time). Wouldn't people be asking you "What were you thinking?"
In terms of legalities, it's quite clear that the thief has you dead to rights, so to speak. You don't like it? Persuade your legislature to change the rules. This is a democracy, and the majority makes the rules. If you don't like that, so sorry.
If you don't want to follow BikerRN's advice, and if you don't want to crap up your car, the way I see it, you have limited choices:
1. Let's get this one out of the way right up front. Just shoot the guy a soon as he gets out of the car. Lie like hell and testify that he was about to attack you and you feared for your life. If you do a good enough job, and the cops don't investigate adequately to uncover any discrepancies in your story, not only will you not be charged but you will also beat the thief at his own game--you become the bigger criminal.
2. Use some kind of force that the thief finds unpleasant but (a) doesn't damage your car further and (b) is not considered, in the light of 20-20 hindsight, to have been an unreasonable application of force. Zip ties around the ankles has some appeal. Of course, this can be a bit tricky, what with having to use two hands for the zip ties, and of course, having to come closer to the thief, who so far isn't being cooperative. And you have to hope he doesn't have a look-out for the cops who comes to his aid. Or the thief might be as tough as hogdogs or you might be just as much a candy-ass as I am.
One poster said: "Just for idle speculation, though, I wonder what the scummie's reaction would be if you doused him with flamable liquid, stepped back and let him hear the 'ker-clink' of snapping your Zippo open." Technically that could be a battery (in most states) and possibly a terroristic threat, which in CA can be treated as a felony. But amusing to contemplate.
OTOH, a stun gun while he's in the car might be workable. And pepper spray outside the car is also worthy of consideration. (For you, that is. For me, I'll be dialing, whiling away the time (Mossberg 500 by my side), and filing with the insurance company.) I might also be filing a complaint with the PD about the slow response to a crime in progress.
3. Effect a citizen's arrest using reasonable force. Get it right, you just saved your deductible and you're a hero! If necessary to defend yourself, you might be privileged to use deadly force to protect yourself while effecting the arrest. Keep in mind that this is not a variant of 1 above. This option assumes that you legitimately try to restrain him physically and he in fact starts to get the upper hand and you honestly and reasonably believe that you are in danger of being killed or suffering great bodily injury. For me, this is way too complicated to analyze on the spot. Get it wrong and you've just bought into a jackpot. From hero to zero in the time it takes to pull a trigger.
Oh, and just to make it a bit more tricky, state laws can vary on this point. Unlike peace officers, in most states, citizens have immunity for a wrongful arrest, and if you use unreasonable force, you might face criminal charges for battery. Doing so while armed with a handgun in CA, even though it is not used in the offense, can be a big, fat sentence enhancement. You could end up doing way more time than the thief.
4. Just physically harm the guy as you see fit. Now re-read the last sentence of 3 above.
5. As one poster note, what about the thief's car? He had to get there someway. If it's parked nearby, you could get the license plate number.
For the most imaginative solution, I like Trooper Tyree's throw-down gun plan.
My small contribution to the solution would be to train my wife to say something different. Something like: "Honey, the police are on their way and they'll be here in a few minutes. I told them that he was kicking some cop's ass for pulling him over."
It might not be legal for her to misreport, but there's nothing illegal about her making the thief think she did so.
Last edited:
Glenn E. Meyer
New member
Rather than stinking up your car by having your tactical chimp through poop at the guy, I was just thinking one could use an annoying strobing flashlight as a nonlethal response. Just a thought - since I have one.
KingEdward
New member
Lob a couple hundred M-80s (fused together in the brick package)
in his direction. He will probably skeedaddle.
fireworks are illegal in town where I live but people shoot them off
all summer long anyway. Not once have police responded.
in his direction. He will probably skeedaddle.
fireworks are illegal in town where I live but people shoot them off
all summer long anyway. Not once have police responded.
OldMarksman
Staff
Any idea what the case law on that might be in different states?
I think that a Taser C2 would be a great option. IIRC it is a 30 second ride. You have the obvious distance advantage over a stun gun and might be better off legally. Also, the dude is obviously nuts and OC has been proven rather ineffective. I had been sprayed 3 or 4 times now for training and it hurts less every time. Outside of my initial reaction to throw my body weight into the door, which would probably destroy a knee since I weigh 270, I would suggest releasing the hounds. "My dog always goes out with me when I take out the trash, your honor." Other less conventional means are great to discuss. Maybe throw the trash on the perp. The water hose is a great idea, especially if it's cold (something we don't see here in Central Texas) Unfortunately, I know my temper and the moment the thieving a-hole laughed at me when I present my weapon I would probably see red and drag him out of the car, disregarding the fact that he may be armed.
Doc Intrepid
New member
Another alternative is when phoning 911 call it in as a "man with a gun" call, (and you're the man with a gun) rather than a "thief breaking into my car" call. May reduce the delay in response time!
Otherwise, I agree that OC is the optimal alternative given these specific circumstances - if you either (a) habitually carry a can of OC with you when you take out the trash at night; or (b) have it handy in your garage. Also agree that have an alternative "less than lethal force" Plan B available is a wise idea.
Out of the universe of scenarios you may encounter, however, I suspect that this level of bozonity is relatively rare...
Otherwise, I agree that OC is the optimal alternative given these specific circumstances - if you either (a) habitually carry a can of OC with you when you take out the trash at night; or (b) have it handy in your garage. Also agree that have an alternative "less than lethal force" Plan B available is a wise idea.
Out of the universe of scenarios you may encounter, however, I suspect that this level of bozonity is relatively rare...
Brian Pfleuger
Moderator Emeritus
That is such an obviously bad idea that it shouldn't even need to be explained why.
But you put them on the right track. 
Old Marksman, this is not directly responsive to your inquiry but might of some help in this situation. I came across the standard jury instructions that a CA judge will give in a criminal case where the defense is "defense of property." These instructions are based on CA case law. Note that there is a different set of instructions for intrusion into your dwelling. These instructions below relate only to defense of property:
The key here is the sentence: Reasonable force means the amount of force that a reasonable person in the same situation would believe is necessary to protect the property from imminent harm.
So if the thief is injured in CA (and my guess is that this would be an issue only if there were either a serious injury or a permanent injury) and the police believe that you used unreasonable force, the jury will decide, after the fact, whether the force you used was reasonable. In other words, if the situation is at all unclear, one would have to decide on the spot what 12 people who he's never met would say about his actions in retrieving a stereo, air bag, and other car parts.
As far as citizen's arrest goes, I can't imagine any state granting a citizen the privilege of using force greater than what a sworn peace officer is permitted to use.
The key here is the sentence: Reasonable force means the amount of force that a reasonable person in the same situation would believe is necessary to protect the property from imminent harm.
So if the thief is injured in CA (and my guess is that this would be an issue only if there were either a serious injury or a permanent injury) and the police believe that you used unreasonable force, the jury will decide, after the fact, whether the force you used was reasonable. In other words, if the situation is at all unclear, one would have to decide on the spot what 12 people who he's never met would say about his actions in retrieving a stereo, air bag, and other car parts.
As far as citizen's arrest goes, I can't imagine any state granting a citizen the privilege of using force greater than what a sworn peace officer is permitted to use.