Tell me the truth about defending your property

[FMUStewart]

Kenny, I don't know what you're looking at. Stew's position is actually very different then yours since he advocates the immediate use of lethal force, as does 2A if the situation (item stolen) demands it.

That all depends on what you consider immediate...let me quote myself...I said..

Would I kill an unarmed robber? That's his choice to make. If he stops his activity and leaves, taking the threat to myself and my property with him, then no.

Should he continue his activity and not heed the verbal warnings on his life...
Should he come after me (even if he is unarmed) at ANY time during the encounter....you bet.

Now if you consider this immediate...you've got the patience of a saint...

Stew

 

[kennybs plbg]

[Do you switch to a longer range weapon if the shot is clear?
/QUOTE]

Dude you have a problem, you are obsesed with people shooting people. I'm really not comfortable with you carring a firearm. You just keep hammering away at the subject, and that not normal in my book.

kenny b

 

[Handy]

A lot of people get very concerned about who gets to carry a gun, and its called gun control.


So you think I'm the unbalanced one because I strongly advocate using violence in only the most extreme and dire circumstances? Yeah, I must be real sick.


You might consider that your camp is for making a very short, uneducated guess about what is going on and deciding to kill over petty theft.

I believe an unarmed and law abiding foreign exchange student in Texas died under similar circumstances. I'm also sure that the fella that shot him made a similar quick assessment and decided that shooting was correct due to trespass that was in progress.

 

[pipoman]

I just read all of todays activity on this thread.

I think the prohibition on shooting the guy rolling out of the parking lot in your car are largely based on the protection of the innocent, collateral damage. Most police departments do not allow officers to fire on a moving vehicle under any circumstances.

You shoot the guy in your car, his foot hits the gas and he rams through the front of the McDonald's Play Area across the street, rams into a family driving down the street, runs over a pedestrian, etc. All very real possibilities.

You shoot at the guy stealing your car and the bullet strikes a bystander.

You draw your gun and point it at the car and a LEO is following you out of the store...you are dead.

Now the risk you take if all goes as planned. The guy is dead in your car. You have violated your states laws to stop the theft of your car.

I have sat in defense attorney's offices and watched people sign over vehicles, deeds to real estate, valuable possessions, empty bank accounts, liquidate retirement accounts all to maintain their freedom. Sometimes it is money well spent other times they go to prison penniless.

If I can avoid having to do this I will. I choose to pay the deductible, make a police report and hope for the best. I would conduct my own investigation and try to locate my car.

I have nostalgia about the whole horse rustling thing as well. Keep in mind 100 years ago you are likely days if not weeks from LEO action.

I live in this time and am bound by todays standards of acceptable behavior.

I am hearing from those who would choose to protect their car in a public place, "Its a matter of principle". A lawyer once told me "principals can be extremely expensive".

If you choose a course of action which results in your being charged with a criminal act I will work with your lawyer in your defense. It will not however be free or even cheap.

 

[Scott Conklin]

BTW: If I really wanted to hear myself drone on, I'd spend as much energy as you do making off topic commentary on other members as a way of forestalling actual debate. Its weak; move on.

So a single comment on your apparent obtuseness indicates I spend exactly how much energy...? Nevermind. I think I'll spend some of that energy on utilizing the ignore feature.

 

[Handy]

That was not the first such comment, sir.

 

[jfruser]

WRT the specific set of circumstances set out in the original post, I would just soak up as much information about the perp as possible & call 911. I am not going to jump in front of a car and I am not going to try to interfere with a driver who is not currently menacing myslef or others. I would not want Mr. Auto Thief to lose control and mow down pedestrians. I value innocent life more than I value my vehicle.

-----------

As to the broader principle, it is my contention that folks are justified in doing whatever they have to do, including use deadly force, to prevent crimes to their property. The thief is not just stealing your car, TV, or family silver; the thief is stealing that part of your life it took you to earn the money needed to buy or replace your property.

I do not value the lives of those who steal from others. They have made a choice not to value others and bring that judgement upon themselves.

Deterrence is a secondary, though welcome and salutary, effect of such a principle put into practice.

-----------

My actions in a specific case will be determined by the local laws and circumstances. I may feel it is right to use deadly force on a thief, but I am not going to endanger my freedom over a push lawn mower. My lawn mower isn't even worth the time I would spend speaking to lawyers & LEOs even given an open & shut good shoot. I am fortunate in that I can afford such a loss without too much hardship.

I see my unwillingless to use all means (up to & including deadly force) to stop the hypothetical lawn mower thief to be morally wrong on my part. We have sunk to the place where, in many cases, we have to choose the immoral path to steer clear of our government's edicts. I will sacrifice that bit of my pride, honor, and neighborliness* to remain free to support my family.

Texas is pretty good about these issues, though.

You might consider that your camp is for making a very short, uneducated guess about what is going on and deciding to kill over petty theft.

I believe an unarmed and law abiding foreign exchange student in Texas died under similar circumstances. I'm also sure that the fella that shot him made a similar quick assessment and decided that shooting was correct due to trespass that was in progress.

If the foreign exchange student was trespassing, it would be incorrect to claim he was "law abiding," now, wouldn't it? Trespassing being a crime & all.

Oh, and "petty" may be a legal term, but what I may consider a "petty" property loss may very well be what shoves another family over the cliff...and very much worth defending with all means available.

* Neighborly/a service to community in that the lawn mower thief won't be back to steal my neighbor's lawn mower tomorrow night, if I send him to his reward in the next life.

 

[Handy]

Jfruser,

Do you count anyone standing outside your front door as a trespasser? You know, where the welcome mat goes?

In that case it was the wrong house and a person that didn't understand the homeowner's English. Does that make the death okay?


It doesn't take much imagination to come up with similar situations that mistakenly appear to be theft and go sour with miscommunication. Pulling the trigger makes moments of mistaken intent permanent disasters.

 

[Pointer]

Handy

Yes, but they do it through law, part of the justice system that involves evidence, a judge, a jury of peers and punishment fitting the crime.

They, quite obviously do not "do it" at all!!!!!!!!!!!!

We are not blood thirsty and wanton... We are all in agreement that UNNECESSARY death is NOT preferred... but the death of criminals is necessary...

That's the punishment that fits the crime!!!!

Naive??? or just argumentative or what???

 

[Handy]

No, you're not naive. But the suggestion that the legal system is of no value is a bit of a call to anarchy. Legal systems were created to avoid the kind of disasterous lawlessness that reigns under vigilantes.


You guys shoot all the horse thieves you want. The crime rate may go down, or the convicted murderer rate will go up. Who knows?



But if it does become acceptable, the number one way to murder someone will be by "lending" them your car. That's the kind of situation we have a legal system to prevent. Throw that away and you're welcoming abuse, especially when the only standard for the use of lethal force is possession of goods.

 

[Pointer]

No, you're not naive.

You aren't naive either...

You are just argumentative...

 

[Handy]

Sure, but it isn't like I don't actually think this is important. Hence my vehemence.

We have a legal system because this kind of thing has been tried in the past and found lacking. It has no controls and ends up encouraging lawlessness, not stopping crime.

 

[jfruser]

Handy:

I am not 100% sure of the incident you are refering to, though I believe many years back I saw a 20/20 or 60 Minutes special on just such an incident...that took place in Louisiana.

Either way, the specifcs of my welcome mat's location are irrelevant. In the incident above , (my imperfect memory recalls that ) Mr. Exchange Student was in Mr. Happy Trigger's car port, advancing on HT, and ignoring HT's orders to stop or leave.

All in all, a crappy deal.

Not knowing the language might get you more than mayo on your burger when you really wanted mustard. I might get your happy, non-English-understanding self killed.

Let there be no doubt, I support Texas's law stating that citizens can use deadly force to prevent the comission of a felony at night. Any breaks belong on the side of the property owner, not the trespasser.

You guys shoot all the horse thieves you want. The crime rate may go down, or the convicted murderer rate will go up. Who knows?

Well, I do believe the homeowner in the incident above never went to trial, as the law & circumstanes were clear and the homeowner acted within the law. (Much to the consternation of the journalists who covered the story.)

Back to my question, was trespassing Mr. Exchange Student really "law abiding?" Or was that just something you pulled out of your 4th point of contact as an embellishment?

 

[Handy]

Back to my question, was trespassing Mr. Exchange Student really "law abiding?"

I guess we'll never know. Someone killed him before any investigation or trial could be held.

 

[M1911]

My entire point for those who missed it, was that we've gotten to the point where even drawing a gun and covering someone with the muzzle is a crime in a lot of situations...brandishing a weapon.

The use of the word even suggests to me that you consider pointing a gun at someone to be a relatively minor issue. In fact, it is assault with a deadly weapon. In most states, it is only legally justified in the most dire of situations.

I strongly suggest that you read Andrew Branca's book, "The Law of Self Defense."

The only time that I will use deadly force is if I, or another innocent, is in immediate danger of death or grave bodily injury.

I'm not a cop. I'll do everything I can to avoid putting myself in danger. I want to come home in one piece to my family. If you think that makes me a coward, so be it.

 

[tegemu]

To Kennybs, I did not say he was stupid - it's the activity that was stupid not him. But, thank you for informing me of my bad manners. It is good to know that we have a doyen of good manners and also someone who judgementally calls someone judgemental, in this forum.

 

[Fremmer]

Four pages concerning another "I want to shoot someone" scenario thread, huh? Interesting that it is not in the tactics forum.

So you say you're gonna shoot the person driving your car? Well, I'll admit that I've never observed a person who is shot while driving a car, but I'll offer the following comments anyway:

You are going to have to damage your own property (which is interesting, because you end up damaging the property that you are trying to protect ) by shooting into it. And you are going to have to be a darn good shot to hit a moving target -- try shooting a running deer sometime, and you'll understand what I mean; most of you couldn't do it with a rifle, much less with a handgun. Don't forget that you are responsible for those rounds that flew into the apartment behind your car when you missed. Finally, if you manage to hit the driver, he is going to bleed all over your car :barf: . That'll be a fun clean-up job! And what is the driver going to do when he is hit? He might lose control of your car and crash, which won't be very good for the car.

 

[pipoman]

This thread had potential of delivering a good discussion. It seems it has once again resulted in argument over petty matters and name calling. There also seems to be a handful of members who cannot enter a thread without using the forum like they would use instant messenger. Arguments should go to IM or email instead of cluttering the threads with one liner after one liner.

regards,

Frustrated Pipoman

 

[invention_45]

776.031 Use of force in defense of others.--A person is justified in the use of force, except deadly force, against another when and to the extent that the person reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to prevent or terminate the other's trespass on, or other tortious or criminal interference with, either real property other than a dwelling or personal property, lawfully in his or her possession or in the possession of another who is a member of his or her immediate family or household or of a person whose property he or she has a legal duty to protect. However, the person is justified in the use of deadly force only if he or she reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony. A person does not have a duty to retreat if the person is in a place where he or she has a right to be.

Hah! I KNEW I saw it SOMEWHERE. Even though this section is titled "Use of force in defense of others", read what it says.

I point out in particular:

A person is justified in the use of force, except deadly force, against another when and to the extent that the person reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to prevent or terminate the other's trespass on, or other tortious or criminal interference with, either real property other than a dwelling or personal property, lawfully in his or her possession or in the possession of another who is a member of his or her immediate family or household or of a person whose property he or she has a legal duty to protect.

This would suggest I'd have no legal problem if I used the shopping cart technique.

Then, if our precious car thief decided he didn't like being interfered with and seemed to be reaching for some more force:

However, the person is justified in the use of deadly force only if he or she reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony. A person does not have a duty to retreat if the person is in a place where he or she has a right to be.

Elsewhere in Florida Statutes this sort of crime starts when it starts AND CONTINUES EVEN WHILE THE CRIMINAL IS IN FLIGHT.

It would appear to me that the legislative intent is that those intending and attempting to steal someone's livelihood or rights to his property (by recalcitrantly parking his ass there and refusing to leave) risk legal death by doing so.

Furthermore, if anybody is injured or killed during the crime, it's the THIEF who's legally liable for ALL contributions to those side effects, NOT the rightful owner.

Shopping cart, anyone?

 

[Handy]

I think that material begs the question "What is a forcible felony?"

If "forcible" means "violent", than that doesn't really mean anything more than defense of life, not property.

Do we know what the phrase means?