Say I catch a perpetrator.....

Status
Not open for further replies.
I will risk my life to protect the safety and security of where I live. This time it's a honda, next time it could be a life. I will not stand by and do nothing while criminals operate with impunity in the place I live.
 
You're avoiding my question. I didn't say a life, I said a honda. My question is very simple. Will you risk your life to protect your neighbors honda from being stolen?
 
Doug, I'm sorry, I just think you're really missing the point here. Garand, Steven, Model520. . . . these guys are telling you what the law says and what IS going to be the consequence of your proposed course of action. You're arguing with them as if they were presenting their opinions.

The fact that judges and juries don't look kindly on shooting people who were not armed nor committing a violent crime when you shot 'em is not Garand's opinion. It's an objective fact, like the fact that a tornado will wipe your house off the block. And like the fact that a tornado will wipe you out, it doesn't matter whether you choose to agree, or whether you think it's morally right. It's going to happen anyway and to deny it is to deny reality.

Just to sum up the very good advice given so far:

1. It is never going to be necessary for you to cock a double-action revolver in order to approach a suspect. Ever. Period. Don't do it. It's dangerous and unnecessary. You have to cock a single-action semi-automatic or a single-action revolver, which is the only reason you accept the danger of doing so. If you really think you need a single-action trigger pull at close range, a single-action semi-auto would be a safer option (you'll have a safety, etc.) Even better would be something like a USP which offers a decocker along with the safety.

2. You should not need to approach a suspect who has complied with your orders and is on the ground at gunpoint. Period. It's not going to help. Keep him there. Keep distance. Keep him covered. Wait for the cavalry. You already stated that you agree with this, I'm just repeating it.

3. If you did, for some reason, decide that you need to cock your double-action revolver, putting your thumb over the hammer doesn't make much sense. It would be a whole lot faster and more accurate for most people simply to pull the trigger in double action than to shift their thumb back over the hammer, acquire a firing grip, and then pull a single-action trigger. It just isn't giving you any advantage.

4. If you carry a double-action revolver, one of the nicest things about it is that your first and second shots will have the same trigger pull. Get used to the idea that you're going to give yourself a crutch by making the first shot single-action, and you re-introduce the problem of learning two trigger pulls. Unlike a semi-auto, each subsequent shot is going to be double action unless you thumb cock every shot--in which case that Single Action Army might not be such a bad idea. :)
 
Doug, the starter of this thread said he wasn't the owner of the car. He is trying to defend someone elses property with deadly force which is plain stupidity-especially since there was nobody in the car being forced out it was just parked in the driveway.
Click to expand...


hehehe :D Actually, I am the "starter of this threat." Doug.38PR is me. So I am qualified to say what the original thread starter mean't by that. I didn't necessarily mean that it was someone else's car. It could be someone elses or it could be mine. Either way I was talking about a hypothetical situation where say I am walking out the door to go towork and I see some hood breaking into my car OR my neighbor's car.

The point, at least to me, is not so much who's car it is as it is who's car it isn't (the criminal breaking into it). But the situation applys to cars, houses, cattle, tv sets, your friend, or you.

Like Blackwater said, you can't just let criminals act with impunity and just walk away and say "oh well, maybe the cops will get him."
 
I completely agree. People have to understand that you're going to be tried for a homicide if you do something like this. Even if you win, which is a really big gamble, you're going to be sued in a civil case by the family of the deceased.

Avoid involving yourself in these situations AT ALL COSTS because you are carrying a gun. People tend to think "because I'm carrying a gun I should involve myself in these type of situations". The truth is the exact opposite. You have a gun, you can't afford to be attacked over a neighbors car and have to use deadly force to protect yourself. It's not worth it.
 
Doug, I'm sorry, I just think you're really missing the point here. Garand, Steven, Model520. . . . these guys are telling you what the law says and what IS going to be the consequence of your proposed course of action. You're arguing with them as if they were presenting their opinions.
Click to expand...

Oh I understand you and others are just saying what the courts would likely say and what the law says (or doesn't say in some cases). I understand you all are not giving your opinions.
I'm not arguing with you or them personally because of any opinion they might have.

What I AM saying is the fact is that what the law "says", what the courts and judges have "said" is what is in fact denying reality. Incidents just don't work out the way the law reads because the law is not written based on reality anymore.

If someone approaches me and threatens me with a bat or if they are bigger than I am or if they threaten me with a gun they say they have under their shirt, I'm not going to be thinking about what some judge or DA is going to say about whether that person really "needed to be shot" or "if I could have retreated" or if "they really had a gun." I am going to do whatever I need to do to stop that threat and get out of that situation by negotiation or by force. But I am not going to put my life or my property in extra risk because in some twisted way of thinking I "didn't give the bad guy a fair enough chance."

What these lawyers have done, is to self-righteously create a world in which nobody is a victim and everybody is a criminal. The criminal is a criminal if he takes action against you but if you take action to stop him then you are a criminal too.

Granted, it's not quite that simple...yet. (Like we all agree that I am okay if a criminal pulls a gun on me and tries to kill me I can shoot back at him and kill him without any trouble) But that where we are going with all these nutty laws and civil cases where criminals can sue victims.

I try to play by the rules and stay out of trouble, but it doesn't always work out that way.

But in reality, I am not going to worry about what some DA is going to say if I am fighting to save my life liberty or property from a criminal.

It's like the Pharisees in the Bible that self-righteously invent rules and laws out of thin air perverting the real Law to make them look self righteous and make the law into something oppressive to the people.
 
If there weren't strict laws pertaining to deadly force people would be killing one another over simple arguments. These laws are in place for a reason. And you should be considered a criminal unless you were threatened with serious bodily harm or death.
 
that's why we have laws against murder. I am not talking about a "simple argument" I am talking about a crime that is being committed, not someone flipping you off on the freeway.
 
What do you mean by crime? Police officers aren't allowed to shoot someone because they are breaking into a car, why should a civilian?
 
You don't have authority to use deadly force to protect someone from taking your neighbors car in their driveway, that goes for all 50 states.
Click to expand...
tsavo,

With all due respect, you are wrong. It is sometimes legal in TX to use deadly force to protect your own and other's property. Here is the text of the applicable sections of the Texas Penal Code. It's worth reading in its entirety.

It's definitely not ANYWHERE near as simple as being able to shoot someone for stealing, there's a LONG list of conditions which must be satisfied before it's legal. I tacked on section 9.06 which is pertinent to these sections and which is often glossed over by internet commandos.

Doug,

You are also wrong. The bottom line is that anyone who thinks TX law allows them to shoot someone for stealing is almost certainly going to go to jail if they act under those assumptions. It's not that simple by a long shot. If you want to have some "fun", try writing up a short post that describes when it is legal to shoot someone for stealing your neighbors's car. I'll bet you get bored and/or frustrated long before you've taken all the legal requirements into account. And even then, when you're done, and if you get it perfectly right, don't forget 9.06. You can still be sued even if your actions were completely within the law.
§ 9.06. CIVIL REMEDIES UNAFFECTED. The fact that conduct is justified under this chapter does not abolish or impair any remedy for the conduct that is available in a civil suit.
...
§ 9.41. PROTECTION OF ONE'S OWN PROPERTY. (a) A person in lawful possession of land or tangible, movable property is justified in using force against another when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to prevent or terminate the other's trespass on the land or unlawful interference with the property.
(b) A person unlawfully dispossessed of land or tangible, movable property by another is justified in using force against the other when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to reenter the land or recover the property if the actor uses the force immediately or in fresh pursuit after the dispossession and:
(1) the actor reasonably believes the other had no claim of right when he dispossessed the actor; or
(2) the other accomplished the dispossession by using force, threat, or fraud against the actor.

§ 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.

§ 9.43. PROTECTION OF THIRD PERSON'S PROPERTY. A person is justified in using force or deadly force against another to protect land or tangible, movable property of a third person if, under the circumstances as he reasonably believes them to be, the actor would be justified under Section 9.41 or 9.42 in using force or deadly force to protect his own land or property and:
(1) the actor reasonably believes the unlawful interference constitutes attempted or consummated theft of or criminal mischief to the tangible, movable property; or
(2) the actor reasonably believes that:
(A) the third person has requested his protection of the land or property;
(B) he has a legal duty to protect the third person's land or property; or
(C) the third person whose land or property he uses force or deadly force to protect is the actor's spouse, parent, or child, resides with the actor, or is under the actor's care.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
tsavo

A police officer CAN use deadly force to prevent the commision of a felony, while there are many departmental regulations that vary, the law is very clear on this.
 
I don't care what the law says in Texas about protecting property, that really doesn't matter. The fact is you're going to be on trial simply because the law isn't cut and dry.

As far as police officers, show me 1 law that says an officer can walk up and kill a person simply because they are breaking into a car. That's the stupidest thing I've ever heard.
 
I don't care what the law says in Texas about protecting property, that really doesn't matter. The fact is you're going to be on trial simply because the law isn't cut and dry.
Click to expand...
That's silly, of course it matters. And no, a trial is NOT automatic. There have been several cases in the news over the past few years where people shot to protect property and weren't prosecuted. The law is what it is. It is complicated and restrictive, but it really DOES allow a citizen to protect his property with deadly force, if all the stringent requirements are met.
show me 1 law that says an officer can walk up and kill a person simply because they are breaking into a car.
Click to expand...
The law is never that simple, and you're restating it in such a manner as to make it sound stupid. Nevertheless, I just showed you a law that said a citizen can kill a person for stealing a car under certain circumstances. Do you think a cop would be more restricted?
 
So you're telling me that if you walk up behind someone who is trying to steal your neighbors cd player out of his car and shoot him in the back of the head you're not going on trail? lol, that's great.
 
So you're telling me that if you walk up behind someone who is trying to steal your neighbors cd player out of his car and shoot him in the back of the head you're not going on trail? lol, that's great.
Click to expand...
Of course I'm not telling you that--in fact it's mind-boggling that anyone could read what I've posted here and come up with such a ridiculous summary.
 
CA PENAL CODE:
197. Homicide is also justifiable when committed by any person in
any of the following cases:
1. When resisting any attempt to murder any person, or to commit a
felony, or to do some great bodily injury upon any person; or,
2. When committed in defense of habitation, property, or person,
against one who manifestly intends or endeavors, by violence or
surprise, to commit a felony, or against one who manifestly intends
and endeavors, in a violent, riotous or tumultuous manner, to enter
the habitation of another for the purpose of offering violence to any
person therein; or,
3. When committed in the lawful defense of such person, or of a
wife or husband, parent, child, master, mistress, or servant of such
person, when there is reasonable ground to apprehend a design to
commit a felony or to do some great bodily injury, and imminent
danger of such design being accomplished; but such person, or the
person in whose behalf the defense was made, if he was the assailant
or engaged in mutual combat, must really and in good faith have
endeavored to decline any further struggle before the homicide was
committed; or,
4. When necessarily committed in attempting, by lawful ways and
means, to apprehend any person for any felony committed, or in
lawfully suppressing any riot, or in lawfully keeping and preserving
the peace.
Click to expand...

Read section 2 carefully and also be aware that A. California penal code is one of the most restrictive in the country and B. police officers have even more authority to use deadly force although they are in fact more restricted due to departmental regs that civvies don't need to go by. BTW civil law is a whole other matter.
 
I think Tsavo is purposely just trying to stir things up. He continuously posts the same nonsense, ignoring the replies that have come.


Here's the bottom line, Tsavo. Please READ this before responding:

No, you cannot shoot someone for breaking into a car. Neither can a police officer. In no state do civilians have the right to execute people for what they believe is a crime.

In many states, however, you DO have the right to protect your own property. Now I realize this is not always the smart thing to do, but we're not all going to be sheep standing by while BG's take away something we've worked for. Take my off-roader, for instance. Value wise, I probably couldn't sell it for more than a couple of thousand bucks. But it represents MANY hours of wrenching in the garage and a HUGE committment of funds that would be difficult to reproduce.

And even if it weren't worth so much to me ... damnit! It's mine! And arguments of "just be a good little sheep and don't disturb the ugly bad men while they're taking your things right in front of you" is just not going to fly on a forum like this where we all take responsibility for our own safety and well being. Pansies did not make America (or any place/community) great; people who stood up for themselves did. When you stnad up against the neighborhood high school punks throwing rocks at windows or stealing cars for joyride, you're making a powerful statement and making your community a little better.

In terms of deadly force (i.e. shooting somebody) that is ONLY for defense of life in pretty much every state. And if I ever pull the trigger on someone, it's not going to be because beating them up would just be too much work and I'm not in the mood for it; it'll be because I believe there is a good chance they're going to do me seriously bodily harm, or because they have already proven that intent, or because they have a weapon. I think you'll find everyone on this forum is like that.

So please ... don't respond to this with yet another
So you're saying I can just walk up behind someone stealing my lawn gnomes and crush they're skull with an axe
Click to expand...

Because no one has EVER said that.

But we will stand up to bad guys. And if things get out of hand they will lose. And the judge/jury will understand that.
 
If you think your life is worth risking for a 10 thousand dollar car I feel really bad for you. Lets just say the car is worth 10 grand, that's about a months pay for most successful people.
Click to expand...

Does this smack to anyone else of a High School student just posting to get reactions?

The average person makes about 40,000 a year. So that 10 grand would be 3 months GROSS salary.

Figure in taxes adn etc., and it's more like 5 months salary.

Figure that the first thing out of every paycheck always has to be mortgage, utilities, etc. ... and it's more like 5 years of "discretionary" income.
 
BTW to clarify I am only stating the facts of the law reguarding justifiable homicide, I would not rush out and shoot a man who appeared to be stealing someone's car. I would question them as to their actions and intentions, and if I felt a felony was being commited I would attempt to notify local authorities FIRST and attempt to detain that person second using only minimum reasonable force. If in the process of those action I felt my life or another persons life was in danger I would then AND ONLY THEN DRAW my weapon and fire it without and threats or hesitation. That is what I would do, I will not judge others opinions or call them "stupid" if they would take other actions as long as they can live with them and get their facts right.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top