Say I catch a perpetrator.....

Status
Not open for further replies.
Think about what you are saying in this thread, it is important to understand that you can not take a life unless it is dire. As in protecting your life or someone elses.

Sure just murder someone because he is stealing a piece of property. NOT.

Now put it like this, he is raping a young girl and choking her and she is about to die. Sure put the gun in his ear and pull. Hope it does not change direction and hit the already choking victim.

Probably not the right thing to do either but it is getting closer to fair. You should Yell, halt, or something to stop the person before you murder (yea it is murder) them. What degree, well the jury will figure that one out.

Harley
 
The premise of this thread is absurd. The poster clearly is a gun carrier who wants to play Cop. I would suggest Doug.38PR lay off the fantasy crap and understand that carrying a gun does not make him big. I do get very disturbed by people who want to play Cop. I don't give a damn about my neighbor"s car.
Doug.38PR's mind set is bad for those of us who carry for PERSONAL protection. I ain't no vigilante man. I look after me and mine.
 
I said a SUCCESSFUL person. I have a 40k + starting salary for me when I graduate already. The average person isn't successful by most means.

It's funny how most of you are back pedling now. Before it was, "Oh I can use deadly force to protect property". Then when I give a scenario you all say that it can't be done, yet you clearly just stated it could be. Someone even listed a law that says you can use deadly force to protect property, yet now you claim you can't.
 
Let's not forget case law. Federal and/or state case law trumps statutes. Garner v Tennesse clearly sets out the parameters for law enforcement deadly force in such situations. Though, the court's intention was to address deadly force against fleeing felons, I think the court's intent as well as subsequent rulings prove out that LEO's cannot use deadly force to protect property regardless of state statutes. Additionally, why would one want to do so? I don't want to demean or confront anyone here. However, take it from those who have been there...property is nothing. Life is everything.
 
I have a 40k + starting salary for me when I graduate already.
Click to expand...

At least I figured your age about right.

Good luck with the world, kid, if you define a "Successful" person as someone who makes $120,000 a year. With a starting salary like that you're probably an engineer, and are likely to top out on the low side of 6 figures. To make the Big money you need to be a business major, but you'll probably start out below $40 K a year as a business major and have to work your way up.

You do need to work on your reading skills. No one has backpedaled -- you just made outrageous claims and then when people reiterated their previous positions you attacked them as back pedaling.

As for the rest of you unsuccessful people who only make $40,000 or less ... why the heck do you even bother?
 
That's what I've been saying, apparently a lot of people don't value their life more than a car. It bothers me that some people here seem to think a ccw permit is a license to kill, or to act as a LEO, and it's isnt either of the 2. A ccw permit doesn't give you anymore rights than anybody else except you are allowed to carry your gun concealed. Any normal person can use deadly force to protect themselves from death. My ccw instructor was a court certified expert in the use of deadly force, and has been a police officer for 38 years.
 
Actually my major is accounting, and I have some family connections at the firm I will be starting at. Nice assumption, though. I don't mean that people who make less than 120k a year aren't successful. I just mean that in the corporate world a salary of 100k or more a year is considered to be the starting point of wealth.
 
enidpd804

reguarding case law; A jury renders a verdict(guilty or not-guilty) based on the facts of the case and instructions from the judge. The judges instructions are based on STATUTE not case law which plays an entirely different role in the legal process that is to complicated to explain here, bottom line the law is CLEAR homicide to prevent a felony is justifiable and a person accused of a homicide appearing to be justified(as in there is any reasonable doubt that it might be) MUST be discharged. This thread is pointless IMHO. Tsavo, god forbid you ever have to take a human life, you will then have some ground to stand on, until then don't talk about what you don't understand.
 
So therefore, you must say yes to this question based on what you just said. Stealing a car is a felony. Your neighbors car is being hotwired in his driveway. You walk up to the drivers side and put a gun to the thiefs head and blow his brains out all over the passenger seat. You used deadly force to prevent a felony, and you're telling me that you think that you're gonna walk away from this?
 
Actually my major is accounting, and I have some family connections at the firm I will be starting at. Nice assumption, though. I don't mean that people who make less than 120k a year aren't successful. I just mean that in the corporate world a salary of 100k or more a year is considered to be the starting point of wealth.
Click to expand...

Yup -- going to work for Daddy's company should make you successfull pretty quick. How about this for an idea -- instead of going to work for a company with "family connections," why not go out and try to make it on your own? That way when you get 120K a year (and I'm not saying you won't, lots of people do) you'll have no one to credit with that success but yourself. If you use family connections, your success with always have an asterisk next to it. "Billy makes over a hundred thousand a year. Of course *snicker* he did use family connections to get there."

Going back to your post on this ... whatever is consisdered the starting point of wealth, you were talking abou ta 10,000 car.

A person making better than 6 figures a year probably has a car worth more than 10,000. A $35,000 SUV is more like it. And while it's undoubtedly insured, hat still represents several years of discretionary income.

And since the average person (not successful person) makes more like 40,000 a year, perhaps you should speak to the average person and not the 5% or so of Americans that make this salary.

My figures stand. For the average person, a $10k car is about 5 years of discretionary income.

Is that worth going to jail for? Of course not.

Is it worth fighting for? If you live in a state that allows it AND you feel physically capable of doing so, DAMN RIGHT!

We're not like pansy Europeans who have to stand with their arms crossed and whimper while others steal the things they've worked for. We're Americans -- a country of street fighters who haven't had their cajones totally removed.

And you're right ... CCW ONLY gives us the right to defend our lives (with maybe an exceptional state or 2) but at least in my state, if I'm trying to physicall stop someone from committing a felony and they turn things around so they are endangering my life I AM allowed to defend my life with lethal force (i.e. a handgun) and it's not the same as if I picked a fight in a bar and then drew my gun when it went bad.

That's all anyone is saying here.
 
Harley Quinn Wrote:

I would shoot a round into the ground before I would approach.
Click to expand...

I haven't seen anyone repond to this, but NEVER do that. That would be idiotic to the extreme. Now police are responding to a shots fired call, and when they get there they see you with a drawn gun. BAD IDEA. YOU ONLY FIRE THAT GUN IN SELF DEFENSE. Not to frighten or warn the BG. You are looking at serious trouble legally if you do.


As far as the rest of the advise given for the questions asked by the poster, most have been covered rationally and logically, and legally.

(man I can't spell today)
 
Garand Illusion, that was great for a laugh, thanks. Networking is the number 1 way to be successful in business besides a good education. Both combined are even better. I only plan on starting my career where I have my connections. I plan on opening my own business someday, there's absolutely no reason not to use connections to get started. You would be a fool if you didn't.
 
Well put Garand Illusion: +1 for accurately stating Colorado law.

Laws do differ in various states. Speaking in general terms, you have the right to use deadly force ONLY if you are protecting your LIFE or the LIFE of another. You generally cannot use deadly force to protect property and law abiding people have gone to jail for long sentences for shooting car thieves.

Now, as Garand put it, if you wanted to stop a theft, you could approach with a weapon in hand and order the BG to abort his crimes. Then, IF the situation escalates and the BG threatens deadly force, you are within your rights to protect yourself.

In a situation where you don't feel warranted in shooting, I would be very cautious about trying to detain a criminal for a variety of reasons.
1. It may take many minutes for the police to arrive. In that time, the suspect will probably make an attempt to flee or overtake you and you'll be forced to then decide whether to shoot and it will become a very complicated and messy situation and all of your actions will be scrutinized;
2. The BG may have friends who attack you when you're trained on the BG;
3. Bystanders won't understand what's going on and may think YOU are the BG or worse even shoot you in defense of the BG!

My advice is probably if it's just property, let it go or confront the BG with a weapon ready, but if he runs let him go and report it to the police. If the BG escalates to deadly force, shoot him to protect yourself. If the BG surrenders, tell him to lay in a prone position on the ground with limbs outspread and DO NOT approach him but DO call the police. IF he flees, let him. It's just property and you WILL go to jail in most states for shooting to protect property.

NOW, inside your house is another matter. Check you state law but many states give you the right to kill a burglar "if you believed he was going to commit a crime in the house."

Quinn posted "I would shoot a round into the ground." From other postings Quinn has no credibility and I would NOT take his advice. If you ever pull the trigger on your gun you better make D@mn sure that you are shooting in defense of your life the the life of another, and you better be shooting the attacker. Shooting into the ground could would presumably be to scare someone that is not threatening your life and is a gravely bad idea. First, an unjustified 'warning' shot, even into the ground, is called 'Aggrevated assault with a deadly weapon' and carries severe prison sentences. Second, a ricochet could kill any person and you WILL go to prison on a negligent homicide charge because you were not shooting in self defense. I recall hearing of a person (I don't recall if it was a cop or civilian) that gave a warning shot in the ground in front of the BG and the ricochet hit the BG and killed him. The shooter went to prison for an unjustified murder.

To address the reason why you cannot kill over property -- It's really a pretty good public policy reason in general. We value life, even a scumbag's life, more than property. Everyone here has stolen something in their lifetime, even as a youth. Did you deserve to be shot and killed for it? Of course not. Property can be replaced. Now, if the BG is stealing your wallet at gunpoint, that's a different story. The other reason is that people can be mistaken about property theft: Here's an example. Say you are up late at night watching TV and you happen to see an unfamiliar man with a slim jim trying to break into your neighbor's Honda in the driveway. You get your pistol and walk over there and shout some commands at him but he doesn't respond and keeps working away... so, you blast him in the chest. Turns out your neighbor locked his keys in his car and his daughter's new boyfriend (who you did not recognize) moonlights as an automobile roadside lockout tech and came over to help him and he is wearing headphones and didn't hear your commands, and the neighbor went inside to use the bathroom and therefore wasn't visible to you. You've just committed murder over a property misunderstanding and will be spending the next 25 years in prison. It's a lose/lose situation.
 
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.
Click to expand...

John,
believe it or not, I agree with you. But I think you misunderstand me. I didn't mean to imply that I think I can shoot somebody "FOR stealing" as though I am on a vengance quest. The law, as you properly cut and pasted for our view, pretty much supports what I have been saying in the midst of all it's jibberish. What I am saying, is that you have the right to STOP someone from stealing or damaging your property with deadly force if NO OTHER OPTIONS are available. I'm not saying I should be able to walk out the door and up to a car thief and planting a bullet in his head while he is busy hotwiring.

Yes, the law is slopply written, yes there are a lot of loopholes for scumbag trial attorneys to go through (most notably 9.06). But I'd have to worry about that bridge when I got to it.
 
Tsavo, why dont you READ my post before reponding to it. If after reading it you still cannot understand the difference between justifiable homicide and cold blooded murder than I am glad you would not take any action at all because you would be just as likely to take the WRONG one.
 
....to me...the ideal law would allow a citizen to use force..if necessary to prevent a serious crime..if no other means were successful....I do not think anyone here is advocating shooting a suspect on the spot (unless the suspect is armed and poses an immeadiate threat)...where the law is wrong today is that does not give a would-be victim or witness of a crime enough power to thwart that crime..remember..usually a policeman comes after a crime has already been commited and reported(not always the case of course)...when the criminal element in our society fears us more than the cops then we will see true progress made in diminishing crime....now those here who want attention don't twist this thread to say something it really doesn't......THE END
 
aspen1964,

The TX law is just about as close to what you describe as "ideal" as I've ever heard of. It is complicated though--but so are most laws.

Doug,
Doug.38PR said:
What I am saying, is that you have the right to STOP someone from stealing or damaging your property with deadly force if NO OTHER OPTIONS are available.
Click to expand...
That's getting closer, but that is still not sufficient under the TX law. A simple theft, even a felony theft is not sufficient justification for use of deadly force, nor is property damage--not even if deadly force is the only reasonable way to recover/preserve the property. I've tried to restate the law in the past, and managed to do so with reasonable clarity, but it takes a page and a half or so to line it out. Best to just read it through several times until you get the gist. You can't shoot someone for simply stealing or damaging property, it's far more complicated than that. What I'm getting at is that non-violent theft is insufficient justification (unless it takes place at night) if you read the law. Also, only certain types of property damage crimes are justification. EVEN if the proper TYPE of crime has happened at the proper TIME, it's still not sufficient justification. There are still several other requirements that must be satisfied before you can use deadly force. (Immediate necessity, no other reasonable method, force, as opposed to deadly force, justifed under 9.41, etc.)

tsavo,
tsavo said:
Then when I give a scenario you all say that it can't be done
Click to expand...
I posted the entire law of my state relating to your objection. You obviously didn't read them at all--not terribly surprising since you said as much
tsavo said:
I don't care what the law says...
Click to expand...
so it's not surprising that your "scenario" bore no resemblance to the type of scenario described in the law. And consequently you received decidedly negative responses which you incorrectly interpreted as "backpedaling".
tsavo said:
You walk up to the drivers side and put a gun to the thiefs head and blow his brains out all over the passenger seat. You used deadly force to prevent a felony, and you're telling me that you think that you're gonna walk away from this?
Click to expand...
Another ridiculous scenario that proves nothing but does make it abundantly clear that you either haven't read or haven't understood about 90% of what's been posted on this thread.
tsavo said:
So therefore, you must say yes to this question based on what you just said.
Click to expand...
Let me ask you a question. Why should anyone should carefully read and logically respond to your posts when it's painfully obvious that you either aren't reading or can't understand what others have posted and that you are either not bothering to take the time to construct a coherent argument or are unable to?
 
Last edited:
Are you ****ing blind? There are numerous people in this thread claiming you can use deadly force to protect property and nothing more.

It's not very hard. It's either a yes or a no. Can you use deadly force to protect a simple piece of property. Plenty of people have said yes so maybe you're the one who should be reading posts again.
 
tsavo said:
It's either a yes or a no.
Click to expand...
No it's not. It's absolutely not "either a yes or a no".

Sometimes you can, most of the time you can't. The fact that you have failed to realize this is further proof that you either aren't reading or aren't comprehending the vast majority of what has been posted on this thread.
tsavo said:
There are numerous people in this thread claiming you can use deadly force to protect property and nothing more.
Click to expand...
Actually, I don't see a single person making such a claim without qualifying it. I've said it so many times that it's almost not worth repeating, but I'll try again. I think you're either not reading or not comprehending most of what's being posted here. I'll tell you what. Just so we know who you're talking about, why don't you quote some of the people who are making these alleged claims and list their names.
tsavo said:
Can you use deadly force to protect a simple piece of property.
Click to expand...
In certain cases you can. In other cases you may not. That's been said over and over now, and I even posted the entire text of the law of my state so it would be perfectly clear. :rolleyes:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top