Tell me the truth about defending your property

Let me just add this afterthought.

Although cars are stolen fairly regularly, we don't go to sleep at night expecting somebody to waltz off with our cars, do we? Why is that?

I think the law I quoted above is Florida's version of the Texas law that explicitly allows you to protect property. It's just titled something else and includes that something else so that it's harder for screamers to find and start yelling "they let you shoot somebody for stealing your property in Florida!!".

Personally, since my vehicle is a piece of junk, I would likely opt to let them go and then I'd go get another piece of junk the next day with cash. But not just everybody can nonchalantly yank $3000 out of their hip pocket without putting the hurt on their family.
 
Open season on thugs - no bag limit, night hunting allowed!!

Call me old fashioned. But I really believe that a crook has no rights, even to his own life, when they commit crime. If he gets caught and placed under arrest, then and only then does due process and "rights" come into play. Can't take the heat, then stay out of my kitchen.

Now I realize that my ideas are backwards to many of you, both libral and conservative (and I'm a moderate! go figure). That's tough. It's the way I believe it should be.
Click to expand...
+ about ten million!!

Criminal thugs should be the hunted, not law-abiding, tax-paying, working citizens. Let the thugs be afraid for their lives to set foot in the street and they'll "come to Jesus" real quick.

No scumbag thug wants to die - not even the ones serving life in prison with no hope of parole.
 
Handy, in my mind, the distinction is extremely sharp. Forcible means you forcing a PERSON by your act, not property.

The statute I quoted seems to be allowing for the following scenario or something like it.

Somebody unwelcome (a stalker) comes onto your unfenced front yard. He's between you and the front door. He's drunk/drugged/violent. You, knowing this problem exists but having to fix your sprinklers anyway, have seen wisely to holster and carry during the job.

This law gives you the right to tell him, in no uncertain terms, to leave. It then gives you the right to use force (not deadly force) to MAKE him leave if he refuses. If, during your making him leave, he decides to switch to deadly force, you then have the right to do the same. You will NOT be seen as the aggressor. Boiled down, it says that if I don't want you on my lawn, but you insist that you belong there, I can ultimately remove you, even if it requires your death. It's a little stepwise, but that is what it says. It throws in there that you can do this on behalf of another, but other than it being the title of the statute, it looks like an afterthought to me.

Naturally, the best course of action is to run inside and dial 911. But if he's between you and the door, what are you going to do?

The part that surprises me (maybe I'll look it up sometime, but I encountered it while looking for this) is that a trespass crime on any kind of property (real, curtilage, conveyance) continues even during the flight of the perpetrator, suggesting that you can mount a defense even against a fleeing felon.

Again, I'll check a time or 2 before I assume that's true.
 
I see what you're saying, but it is different than being able to simply shoot someone in the act of burglary. You have to engage them first, and can only use the gun if it escalates. Unfortunately, this means that the shooting has to be defense and reactive, which means that you are not in the most advantageous position, increasing the risk to your life.
 
My lates 2 cents...

Though I think all car thieves should be shot on site along with all murderers, gangrapist, kidnappers... the legal and mental consequences,.. not to mention the permanent blood and brain stains on your carseat headrest is not worth it. :eek:

Your best bet is to yell at the guy, get a description and hope he stops and steps outside your vehicle. If he brandishes a weapon, then you have my blessing to blast him till his leg wiggles. If he is unarmed then order him to the ground and call the cops. :mad:

If you were to fire to scare, fire into the ground, not in a random direction. :cool:
 
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.
Click to expand...

On several issues, I seem to find myself in disagreement with steelheart. This one is different. It is a matter of principle. I bought that car. It's a car, not a Pez dispenser. It likely cost me in the tens of thousands, not a dollar. I love my work, but a great number of people don't. Tens of thousands of dollars represents a lot of drudgery for them, and what do they get out of it? They get a car they have to have to go do more drudgery.

My sweat and aggravation went into that car. It's mine. Not the G.D. thief's. He's inherently tens of thousands of dollars worth of wrong. Once he's gone with that car, it's not coming back.

Did I leave my $950 .45 in the glove box? That's gone, too, and I'll have to make damn sure I notify everyone and his grandmother of its theft so I don't get blamed for the NEXT car theft this guy does using it. Maybe my palm pilot is in the glove box too, with all my business connections' information. At the very least, I'll spend hours putting that back together and probably miss an appointment or two. At worst, mr. thief will know where other nice cars are located.

Now, in addition to having to walk home, I have to pay my deductible, call my insurance company, wait for their response, find another car, which will likely be crappier because I have to do all this in a hurry or lose my job. I have to make all kinds of whiny excuses to my employer as to why I have to take a few hours off here and there. And that's if the bank owns the car and I'm paying comprehensive. If I'm not, then I have to pony up cash for the price of a replacement car.

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.
Click to expand...

Shatter the windshield. Or don't shoot, use a grocery cart.

Finally, if you manage to hit the driver, he is going to bleed all over your car . 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.
Click to expand...

These are all low-likelihood risks. There are companies that specialize in completely removing the sort of mess you are talking about. You can replace the seats and carpet if need be. Then trade it when you have the luxury of being able to shop for a new one, not RIGHT NOW because you have none. Keep any envelopes that fell under the seat with your current address plainly printed on them rather than giving access to them to the criminal world, along with your keychain.

----

I'm not saying that I'd go chasing down the street flinging grocery carts or shooting up my car. But I'm not saying I wouldn't consider it, and I got no argument with somebody who feels strongly that they should.
 
It sounds like FL took their car jacking problems in the 80's? 90's? seriously. I read a while back about the dramatic decrease in violent crime in FL since CC and other law changes. It would be nice if other criminal enclaves like DC, NY, Philly, etc would acknowledge the positive effects of FL changes...it will not happen soon IMO.

invention_45 I would suggest you read the case annotations associated with the statute you quoted. Annotations will give you a clearer picture of how the law is applied and interpreted in your state. If you choose to read the annotations I would be curious your take on the legality of defending personal property with deadly force. I would read them but I am just too busy being lazy on my day off.:)

Another state which would allow deadly force in the protection of your car is Louisiana IIRC. LA law considers your car an extension of your home. In LA you may have a loaded firearm concealed in the glove box, center console, under the seat. It is only considered a concealed weapon if it is concealed on your person. LA is the only state I am aware of which does not allow for involuntary repossession of vehicles, repossession must be voluntary or by court order (because of the extension of home).
 
Use a grocery cart?!? :D I must have missed the grocery cart idea. Don't you know that there is never a grocery cart around when you need one? :p

Believe me, I understand that you don't want some jerk stealing your car. That would really make me mad too, and I would suffer financially. But accurately hitting a moving target is much more difficult than people realize. I've gotten to the point that I won't even take a shot at a running deer; a moving target (especially a quick moving target) is really tough to hit. Try hanging a target at the range that can be moved 20 or 30 yards horizontally; have your buddy pull it as fast as he can; and see how many of your rounds actually hit the moving target. For most of us (myself included), that number will be zero. Except in this scenario, those expended rounds didn't just harmlessly hit a backstop; instead, they hit buildings, or even other cars (try explaining that one to some poor guy -- well, see, this guy was stealing my car, and I tried to shoot him because I didn't want him to steal my car, except I accidently hit your car, so here is my contact info....:D ). Or they hit innocent people.....

I'm really sorry about your daughter. I didn't mean to shoot your house. Ya gotta believe me...I just didn't want that guy to take my car. I'm really sorry that your little girl got shot......:(
 
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.
Click to expand...

Most everything in this debate is relative. Compared to actually pulling the trigger and KILLING somebody, it is JUST pointing a gun at someone who poses a physical or property threat.

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.
Click to expand...

I'm not calling you a coward or implying that at all. My apologies if I have.

And the scenario here (or at least the major one) is theft of your car. It might clarify my stance a bit if I tell you that the only time I think of that is...at night...parked in my drive way or garage. Not in a parking lot, not at the store, not at work. But on my own property.


Stew
 
I think you should just go up to the thief and politely ask him to not steal the car. Then shoot him in the head.
 
what I want to do:

if they try to steal my car i'll try to steal their life. Im sorry but who are you to judge how i value my car?


What i will probably do on actual situation:

Call the COPS. Like some of you said, i do not want to give away my right to own guns for some stupid thief.:(
 
These are all very decent replies to my post.

Though, it is still quite a dismal thought that even though you may be an armed civilian who has the capability to defend his property, in our way of life, you pretty much have to stand there with your weapon holstered while the guy stealing your property can just laugh at you while he knows you aren't going to risk your own rights or go to jail by using deadly force to stop him just for stealing your property.
The criminal is actually using his victims own morals and their fear of what they think may happen to them legally to his own advantage without even knowing it.
As most here would think to themselves, "It's just a car. I'm not going to shoot and even kill anyone just to protect it." and the guy stealing it is reading your mind, except, he would kill you for the car.
 
Dust Devil

"It's just a car. I'm not going to shoot and even kill anyone just to protect it." and the guy stealing it is reading your mind, except, he would kill you for the car
Click to expand...
This last statement is contrary to your original post.

The suspect shows no signs of having a weapon.
Click to expand...
You assume that a car thief will kill you, well maybe if he thinks he's going to be caught. If his intention is to kill you he would probably have a weapon and just carjack you. Much simpler. But knowing the risk of being killed himself by a possible CW carrier he will opt to discretely hot wire a car.

the guy stealing your property can just laugh at you while he knows you aren't going to risk your own rights or go to jail by using deadly force to stop him just for stealing your property.
Click to expand...

It's a matter of self restraint if someone is making fun of you or laughing at you, if you can even see that is happening in a car trying to get away. It's not worth killing him or taking the risks of all the other posters in this thread. I think he would be frightened as well about being identified and caught.
 
"Hotwire your car"

This is getting more and more difficult and isn't even possible in many of todays vehicles. I don't know the numbers but the drive away car thiefs are becomming obsolete. I would be interested in any report of a drive away theft of any of the transponder key equipped vehicle. I believe transponder technology is the reason for the increases in the numbers of carjackings and mugging for car keys.
 
Use a grocery cart?!? I must have missed the grocery cart idea. Don't you know that there is never a grocery cart around when you need one?
Click to expand...

I live within 6 blocks of a Publix and an Albertson's. They're just part of the landscape!:p
 
invention_45 I would suggest you read the case annotations associated with the statute you quoted. Annotations will give you a clearer picture of how the law is applied and interpreted in your state. If you choose to read the annotations I would be curious your take on the legality of defending personal property with deadly force. I would read them but I am just too busy being lazy on my day off.
Click to expand...

I'm probably going to do that. Soon as I figure out how to access them on the web without doing any work.

I quote statutes a lot, and sometimes even copy them for others to see. I'm not a lawyer, though (probably obvious to anyone who is). I just like to make an effort to go to real sources.
 
The way I look at it is it's MY car. If I can do it with reasonabe safety, I'll try to stop you from making it yours, unless you want to pay me for it.

Now, in any actual situation on any given day, I might choose to just retreat and call the police.

But if I'm on a jury trying somebody who shot at a car thief but instead caused some unintended damage (no matter what kind) I will consider the THIEF as the cause of that damage, NOT the car owner, and will never in a million years vote him guilty.
 
I mention annotations because a lot of people read statutes and assume they understand the law they are reading. Annotations are "the rest of the story", without researching the case law associated with the law it is like reading 1/2 of a book and guessing at the ending.

Forcible means you forcing a PERSON by your act, not property.
Click to expand...

This may be the definition in your opinion. Legal definitions often vary and should never be determined by assumption.

Legal precedent, IMO, is more important than the common interpretation of the language of the statute.
 
pipoman:

I'm not arguing against looking at case law. I'm reading the Florida Statutes which were recently changed in this area. The "legislative intent" was, in part, to make statutory the content of case law. But it's still a good idea to look at it.

Part of the statutes define "forcible felonies". It lists them out. Each and every one involves using force against a PERSON. Just as an example, unrelated to this thread, auto theft is NOT a forcible felony. Carjacking IS.
 
I think it is interesting how we all carry firearms pursuant to a statute in the state we reside in. What may be illegal use of deadly force in one state may be completely legal in an adjoining state.

Here is the 1st paragraph in the statute I carry under:

(1) Demonstrates to the attorney general the need to carry a firearm in order to protect the licensee's life or property or to protect the life or property of a client of licensee and submits such proof as required by the attorney general to establish the necessity for the issuance of a firearm permit;
Click to expand...

Obviously I am within the lawful use of deadly force to protect my property or the property of my clients. I still don't think I would shoot at a car thief on behalf of myself or my client.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top