Stupid kids
- Thread starter rugerdude
- Start date
How do you know that whatever they are holding (or might imagine them holding) is not a deadly weapon that they are about to use on you? I would definitely put the proof of burden on them to give me clear reasons NOT to shoot. You have to be ALIVE to show up in court as either the plaintiff or defendant.
That being said, no property is really worth the price of a human life, but I would certainly use a firearm on their vehicle to prevent them from leaving the scene.
That being said, no property is really worth the price of a human life, but I would certainly use a firearm on their vehicle to prevent them from leaving the scene.
I was under the impression that you should not shoot unless you are afraid for your life and cannot escape. So protecting your car is out of the question. Unless its full of some type of touch explosive that may be set off by moving the car. Then you may be justified in shooting the kids to keep them from blowing up your house, the people inside and the surrounding 20 blocks. Just don't miss. 
As I stated in my post, I know it's not a good idea to go confront these hooligans.
However, in TN you, Joe Citizen, can also arrest them if you so desire. And according to TCA (39-14-408) vandalism is punished under theft definitions (39-14-105). So if your car is worth over $500, it is at least a Class E Felony. So, I guess you'd be okay legally to "arrest" said hooligans. (and for those who still insist on the "I wouldn't do that if I were you"..... yes, I think we all know that.)
However, in TN you, Joe Citizen, can also arrest them if you so desire. And according to TCA (39-14-408) vandalism is punished under theft definitions (39-14-105). So if your car is worth over $500, it is at least a Class E Felony. So, I guess you'd be okay legally to "arrest" said hooligans. (and for those who still insist on the "I wouldn't do that if I were you"..... yes, I think we all know that.)
Garand Illusion
New member
We discussed this at some length in the CCW classes I took, including one with a lawyer ...
He was talking about Colorado, and I thought some of the information was contradictory.
1. You cannot use deadly force to defend property (draw a gun, brandish a gun, threaten with a gun, etc.)
2. You CAN use physical force to defend property (get in some one's way, tackle them, etc.)
Where it gets hard, though ... the lawyer felt that if you were facing a number of people who conceivably could be a threat, it would not be brandishing to draw a weapon and hold it at your side when confronting them; this would simply be taking a reasonable caution when confronting multiple criminals with unknown intent, and under the circumstances not brandishing to the reasonable citizen.
However ... technically if those people laught at you and continue to steal your car (or whatever) at this point there's nothing you can really do besides allow it to happen.
If they all come at you after you confront them, or one displays a weapon (even if he just pretends to have a weapon by reaching under his coat or whatever) ... well, now they've threatened you with deadly force and the situation just changed. Take action to defend yourself as you see fit.
On the other hand ... realistically, if you hold an unarmed BG at gunpoint until the police arrive and he really is a provable criminal, it's highly unlikely (at least in this state) that you'll be criminally prosecuted. The DA's know a jury is unlikely to convict someone who didn't actually shoot anybody, but used a legally owned/possess firearm to confront felons. It's technically illegal, but it's not something you'll generally be prosecuted for.
You takes your chances ...
For me, I probably wouldn't be too confrontational defending my property. But would be HIGHLY aggressive at defending my life.
He was talking about Colorado, and I thought some of the information was contradictory.
1. You cannot use deadly force to defend property (draw a gun, brandish a gun, threaten with a gun, etc.)
2. You CAN use physical force to defend property (get in some one's way, tackle them, etc.)
Where it gets hard, though ... the lawyer felt that if you were facing a number of people who conceivably could be a threat, it would not be brandishing to draw a weapon and hold it at your side when confronting them; this would simply be taking a reasonable caution when confronting multiple criminals with unknown intent, and under the circumstances not brandishing to the reasonable citizen.
However ... technically if those people laught at you and continue to steal your car (or whatever) at this point there's nothing you can really do besides allow it to happen.
If they all come at you after you confront them, or one displays a weapon (even if he just pretends to have a weapon by reaching under his coat or whatever) ... well, now they've threatened you with deadly force and the situation just changed. Take action to defend yourself as you see fit.
On the other hand ... realistically, if you hold an unarmed BG at gunpoint until the police arrive and he really is a provable criminal, it's highly unlikely (at least in this state) that you'll be criminally prosecuted. The DA's know a jury is unlikely to convict someone who didn't actually shoot anybody, but used a legally owned/possess firearm to confront felons. It's technically illegal, but it's not something you'll generally be prosecuted for.
You takes your chances ...
For me, I probably wouldn't be too confrontational defending my property. But would be HIGHLY aggressive at defending my life.
Basically you are at the mercy.........
of the legal system where you live, you may want to contact
the police and ask them what the limitations are as to you
defending your property, of course they will say to contact them
immediatly as they don't want violence or to have to come
back and arrest you at a later date because "it's the law".
As far as paintball/BB/pellet most states and municipalities
frown their use in anger as much as firearms I know here
in Michigan even the implication fo a weapon is an automatic
2yrs if convicted.
I am no lawyer but have read up a lot on law as it is interesting.
of the legal system where you live, you may want to contact
the police and ask them what the limitations are as to you
defending your property, of course they will say to contact them
immediatly as they don't want violence or to have to come
back and arrest you at a later date because "it's the law".
As far as paintball/BB/pellet most states and municipalities
frown their use in anger as much as firearms I know here
in Michigan even the implication fo a weapon is an automatic
2yrs if convicted.
I am no lawyer but have read up a lot on law as it is interesting.
SMMAssociates
Inactive
Had a case here in OH (where deadly force seems to be illegal unless the BG already shot you) that's interesting.
A woman was receiving threats from a man - ex-husband, I think - stalker issues, late night hangup phone calls, doorbell rings with nobody there, etc.
She was holding her daughter (toddler, I think) when the doorbell rang, and grabbed up a gun as she went to the door.
Turned out to be a Girl Scout (or something like that) selling cookies.
Children's Services took the child ("child endangerment"), and the PD took the gun. Took her too for a while if I remember correctly. "Brandishing"....
I don't recall the outcome, but I think it ended happily eventually.
Anybody else see what's wrong with this picture?
Regards,
A woman was receiving threats from a man - ex-husband, I think - stalker issues, late night hangup phone calls, doorbell rings with nobody there, etc.
She was holding her daughter (toddler, I think) when the doorbell rang, and grabbed up a gun as she went to the door.
Turned out to be a Girl Scout (or something like that) selling cookies.
Children's Services took the child ("child endangerment"), and the PD took the gun. Took her too for a while if I remember correctly. "Brandishing"....
I don't recall the outcome, but I think it ended happily eventually.
Anybody else see what's wrong with this picture?
Regards,
Bad idea. If you show a gun it better be loaded, because one of the "kids" might be armed with a loaded gun, and not knowing yours isn't, start shooting at you. Then what do you do? Yell out "Just Kidding!"
If you are going to show a weapon, it should be loaded and you should be ready able and willing to use it, otherwise don't show it or you may escalate into something you can not respond to.
You should check out your State laws, you have been given a lot of conflicting and contradictory advice and each State has different laws arrived at in a different manner. You could start at www.packing.org. That website has a laymans rundown on firearms laws for each State and if it doesn't answer your question will probably point you in the right direction to look further.
Well, thanks for the info and advice. Thankfully I doubt anything more will become of this, and the damage to my friend's car was almost nothing (he lost a mirror, not a big deal, but I thought it was much worse.) We may know who did it, but we don't have proof and once again, they really didn't hurt much so I guess we will just have our laughs about it unless this continues (which I doubt it will).
Thanks,
rugerdude
Thanks,
rugerdude
If memory serves me correct, in texas this type of behavior at night is considered criminal mischief. I would have to check to see what the law allows when dealing with criminal mischief, but I think texas allows some sort of response when dealing with thugs at night on your property. I know there is a section dealing with criminal mischief but I just can't remember what it says.
TX offers more latitude than most states in dealing with criminal mischief during the nighttime.
In TX, a property owner could shoot someone who was preparing to flip his car over if he:
"reasonably believes that force is immediately necessary to prevent or terminate the other's ... unlawful interference with the property AND reasonably believes ... deadly force is immediately necessary to prevent the other's imminent commission of ... criminal mischief during the nighttime AND he reasonably believes that ... the ... property cannot be protected ... by any other means OR the use of force other than deadly force to protect or recover the land or property would expose the (property owner) or another to a substantial risk of death or serious bodily injury."
Carefully note the use of "force" and "deadly force" in the paragraph. They are NOT the same thing.
Basically, you must be convinced that force is necessary to stop the crime. You could probably convince yourself of this by shouting at them to stop and telling them that the police are coming. THEN you must be convinced that any force other than deadly force would be useless, OR that any force other than deadly force would expose you to substantial risk of serious bodily injury or death. That gets trickier.
In TX, a property owner could shoot someone who was preparing to flip his car over if he:
"reasonably believes that force is immediately necessary to prevent or terminate the other's ... unlawful interference with the property AND reasonably believes ... deadly force is immediately necessary to prevent the other's imminent commission of ... criminal mischief during the nighttime AND he reasonably believes that ... the ... property cannot be protected ... by any other means OR the use of force other than deadly force to protect or recover the land or property would expose the (property owner) or another to a substantial risk of death or serious bodily injury."
Carefully note the use of "force" and "deadly force" in the paragraph. They are NOT the same thing.
Basically, you must be convinced that force is necessary to stop the crime. You could probably convince yourself of this by shouting at them to stop and telling them that the police are coming. THEN you must be convinced that any force other than deadly force would be useless, OR that any force other than deadly force would expose you to substantial risk of serious bodily injury or death. That gets trickier.
I still can't get over the fact that you were going to rack a gun for which you have no ammo? 
That's wild. You'd be better off pulling out an axe and screaming like a Banchee, sprinting towards them. That would probably disperse them. Sure, you wouldn't get but five or six, but who the hell is going to stick around with an axe murderer running at them?
That's wild. You'd be better off pulling out an axe and screaming like a Banchee, sprinting towards them. That would probably disperse them. Sure, you wouldn't get but five or six, but who the hell is going to stick around with an axe murderer running at them?"I still can't get over the fact that you were going to rack a gun for which you have no ammo? That's wild."
The idea was that these are just some stupid vandals and not hardened criminals, the shotguns presence and sound would be to ensure that they don't return, not to cause harm. This thread was started because i did not know if that was legal or not, I know (or at least have reason to believe) that it is not legal, and therfore I don't intend to do it, but thankfully I don't think I will have to.
I don't know about you, but (if i were said vandals) i'm not going to escalate a minor vandalism charge (from which i could easily escape) to murder.
The idea was that these are just some stupid vandals and not hardened criminals, the shotguns presence and sound would be to ensure that they don't return, not to cause harm. This thread was started because i did not know if that was legal or not, I know (or at least have reason to believe) that it is not legal, and therfore I don't intend to do it, but thankfully I don't think I will have to.
I don't know about you, but (if i were said vandals) i'm not going to escalate a minor vandalism charge (from which i could easily escape) to murder.
You have to be very careful when dealing with something like this. It doesn't really matter what is "technically" legal to do. How many times do police officers illegally search a car? Thousands of times everyday across the country. How many times do people get convicted of crimes even though they are legal by a technicality. The main point is, if you rely on a technicality to save your butt in court you're taking a big gamble. The only time it's smart to use deadly force is if you're about to be attacked by someone who you can prove was going to cause you serious harm or death, or better yet shooting someone that is invading your house.
3 weelin geezer
New member
I still believe that jails are nothing more than a sanctuary that house people away from angry law abiders who know the law is meant to protect the unlawful (you cant shoot them because......) until we 'forget' what they did and they can walk the streets again in safety so that they don't end up being famous on the 6 oclock news mysteriously ending up sleeping with the fish or becoming someones hood ornament or suffering an unexplicable gunshot from some neiborhood a mile away or.....
CarbineCaleb
New member
I think a lot of this depends on the police, judge, jury... I knew a guy in Jersey who heard some noise out front - two guys were trying to steal his Harley, and were pushing it up a ramp into their pickup truck. Being a biker, he didn't take that lightly, and ran out front with a baseball bat and put them both in the hospital. He was the nicest guy, but you shouldn't be on the wrong side of him. I didn't ask him for all details, but I know he didn't go to jail and am not even sure if he was charged with a crime.