Tell me the truth about defending your property

[invention_45]

pipoman

If I were you I'd look up your state's laws on use of force and use of deadly force. That law just describes how to qualify for a permit. I'm no lawyer, and I could be wrong, but I'd feel very shaky relying on that statute as a defense to any use of force in court.

From what I can gather, if you end up a defendant before a jury, the judge (or somebody) reads the law you allegedly violated. It's up to the jury (unless they know about juror nullification) to decide whether or not you in fact violated that law. They aren't read other laws. And I think they're not allowed to research for themselves.

So if by some wierd circumstance, the actual self-defense statute doesn't allow property defense, that's what you'd be charged with. The jury would not see the statute about qualifying for a permit.

Your guilt (whether I like your politics or not) would never make it past me. But I might not be there.

 

[pipoman]

There is some case law which supports the use of deadly force by a licensee to protect personal property.

2 years ago a friend of mine was hired by a bank to watch an ATM which had been coming up short.

During the coarse of the investigation he witnessed the unarmed thief committing theft. He followed the thief on foot where he confronted him at gunpoint. The thief ran, the PI gave chase, long story short the thief ended up with a round in his spine. There were no criminal charges filed because of the above statute and previous case law. The thief's attempt at a civil suit was also unsuccessful.

Again I will not use my firearm unless I, my client, or my family is in grave danger. I will be a great witness to property crimes but will not use deadly force to defend personal property.