Use of physical force to prevent Arson.

K

kennybs plbg

New member
O.K. we covered a wallmart crazy below. How about the use of physical force to stop or prevent Arson.

Has anyone ever given it any thought? Know your state's rights?

In New York, if a person reasonably believes this to be the case he is justified to use deadly force.

N.Y.S. Penal code:

"may use deadly physical force in order to prevent or terminate the commission or attempted commission of arson"

Anyone surprised by this? Is a bic lighter considered a weapon in the hands of an arsonist?

kenny b
 
Should we wait for him to flick his bic first, (sorry I had too).
Really what are the rights in other states. Being now a legal resident of Arizona I'm embarrased to say I don't even know what thay are here.
Guess it's a good time to find out.

kenny b
 
There was another post a little while back that addressed this subject. I believe the scenario included a person attempting to light a dog on fire down some back road. If I remember correctly most agreed that deadly force was justified not because of the dog itself (though it was a convincing factor for most, including myself), but because of the possible threat to the public from an out of control fire. If you search arson, Texas & dog I'm sure you'll find it.
 
My reasoning behind the post was to circumvent the large majority of people here who believe a person must be pointing a gun at you in order to take proper action. (as per the walmart drama)

Too many people react to hearsay and fear instead of the facts:
eg, "You can count on being sued and loosing every penney you have."
or
"You going to jail regardless until the big LEO guy at the station decides if your guilty or not."
or my new favorite,

"Just because the law (remember "law" is a collective term that is only a representation of a societal value at a given time... it is not absolute) may be on your side does not mean that you will not be prosecuted criminally and ESPECIALLY in a civil court."

All people need to do is search the Penal Code of their state for facts/Law on self defense and justified use of force.

This is the law we live under and your rights living in that state.

kenny b
 
i admit i dont know for sure, but it seems to me like if you see some dirtbag pouring gasoline on your house and about to torch the place that you would be in the right to shoot him.
 
Different scenerios -different action:

My property on my property - I would yell, warn then shoot if needed (not likely) to stop him. If he produces a gun, little or no warning - BANG.

Someone else's property where there is a good chance people would be endangered (like a populated apartment) - same action as above.

Someone else's property with no obvious chance of endangering people, I would call 911 (The "Be a good witness crowd should applaud"). If the value of the property being torched is substantial (Church vs a minibarn), I would pull my gun and tell him to stop, but would never shoot unless he put me in serious danger.

I don't think someone else's property is worth me shooting someone unless the arson would put people in grave danger.
 
Good question kennybs.

I don't know. They do sign up for that job. I don't think its worth my mental stress of taking a life, or the legal ramifications to try and keep a fireman from doing what he volunteered to do.

thought provoking question though.
 
Read up on all the defense laws in Alabama recently. If you catch someone committing arson or have reason to believe they are about to commit arson then it's open season.
 
Most states allow the use of deadly force in the defense of your own life or the life of others when lives are placed in immediate danger of death of severe bodily harm and/or violent felonies.

Arson is a felony which places lives at risk.

The situation is heavily fact dependent, but if you legitimately shot to defend and arson in the act of committing the violent felony, I doubt you'd find a prosecutor that would pursue prosecution. However, it would be a very difficult situation to claim you shot an arson in self defense or defense of another.
 
In KY, under KRS Chapter 503.080:

(2) The use of deadly physical force by a defendant upon another person is justifiable
under subsection (1) only when the defendant believes that the person against whom
such force is used is: ...

(c) Committing or attempting to commit arson of a dwelling or other building
in his possession.
Click to expand...

This seems to leave some abmbiguity for buildings not owned by or otherwise under control of the shooter, but I suspect that in KY one would not be prosecuted.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top