Wife's Car Stolen Last Night! Stop the SOB with a Gun?

Status
Not open for further replies.
D

Deliverer

New member
I can't believe it. My wife's car was stolen last night. If I saw the theft in progress, I would have confronted the SOB with my Mossy 590A or my HK USP45 which ever was at hand! The cop I gave the report to said I would be committing a crime and said I was lucky I missed the SOB.
I don't think I shouldn't have a right to protect my property. Am I missing something. What would you habve done? :mad:
 
I'm not a lawyer, and I don't play one on TV, but my gut is that in the PRK, where I assume you live based on your profile, you'd be screwed if you had confronted the thief with a gun. Sad, but that's likely the law there for a property crime.

I'm sure others more knowledgable than me re: Kali will chime in.
 
CA doesn't permit deadly force in the protection of property. This doesn't mean that you can't stop someone from stealing your car, but only that you can't use deadly force to do so. Now, if the facts suggests that the suspect escalated the situation such that the owner's life was endangered, we're not talking about defense of property now but self-defense and deadly force is permitted. The owner however cannot have done anything to have escalated the situation to a deadly force level.

Two things need to be done. Restore the older Common Law which permits deadly force to protect property. In the old days of the Common Law, if a thief stole a man's horse, which was not only transportation but a work animal, he deprived him of his livelihood and therefore, an indirect threat of death to him. Thus, in the days of the old, a man was permitted to use deadly force to protect said horse). Second, Tort Reform Now to give the homeowner or property owner immunity from civil liability for lawfully killing the SOB who was trying to steal.

Until those two changes are made in Calif, I cannot recommend deadly force to protect property.
 
Its probably that way in most states. In Utah you would be facing murder charges if you shot him. The law specifically states that you cannot used deadly force against someone breaking into your vehicle unless you are in the vehicle when the break-in is attempted.
 
To say I don't understand why you can't protect your property is an understatement.

Why then, are convenience stores allowed to protect their property with deadly force?

Why are the "elite" allowed to protect themselves with deadly force?

I guess they (Kali Politburo) figured out yet why crime is such a favorite occupation for far too many "subjects"?

I suppose this is Socialist Justice. And it's there for Just Us.

Best Regards,
Don

------------------
The most foolish mistake we could make would be to allow the subjected people to carry arms; history shows that all conquerers who have allowed their subjected people to carry arms have prepared their own fall.
Adolf Hitler
 
Re: Texas - Amen to that!

Drill him between the eyes if he's stealing your car and the world has one less parasite and you have the satisfaction of not having to feel like less than a man because of the liberals (note: I don't mean that you are less than a man - just that the liberals are trying to legislate everyone in that direction)

I love TEXAS! I have had to investigate many a strange noise outside and have always done it in the confidence that I am empowered to defend my family, home and property with whatever force is necessary! (In my case, either a 6D cell flashlight to the head or several .44 or .45 caliber holes applied liberally to the torso of the BG)

canis

[This message has been edited by CANIS (edited April 09, 2000).]
 
In Kentucky the law states that you
can't use deadly force to protect
your property. The local prosecutor
has stated that he will charge a CCW
holder with murder if he uses his
pistol. (So, you'd better be sure
that you are in mortal danger before
you shoot.) As far as your
car...well, in Ky. you just have to
stand there with your thumb up
your...and wave bye to the thief.
Sucks.

Will

------------------
Mendacity is the system we live in.
 
To be safe, the show of deadly force may keep one out of trouble with the law if it is only used to protect a life or grave bodily injury. "in fear of your life, or life of others" It depends how your actions are explined after the fact . What happened when and why. The key is don't play policeman,
be a good witness. I would protect my property, but I would not shoot at a fleeing GTA susp. Let 'em get away and save yourself
a bunch of trouble.
 
You gonna take a life to keep a car?
I don't care what the state law is; if you kill someone to protect property (especially insured, mundane property), you deserve to be stuck in a cage for a long time.
 
In most states in the United States you ccould legally use deadly force in the situation you describe if you can say that when you confronted the car thief he took some action that put you "in fear of death or serious bodily harn." The test is whether a "reasonable man" in yor place would have felt that they were in fear of death or serious bodily harn.
As you can see, if it happens it is important to tell the right story to the LEOs wgo respomd.
 
CT,
I can appreciate your concern with life vs property. After all, the SOB just took my wife's car. I know his/her life is more important than my families ability to earn a living. Our insurance will reimburse the legal owner, and we will have to buy another car. I know it's just an inconvenience. After all, it's only money! The SOB probably came from a broken home, sociologically challenged. You know, so I should feel sorry for the poor SOB. Life in America is tough. Imagine someone who wants what you have and could have anxiety if the SOB had to pay for it dearly. So, your damn right,I would if I could. I at least would take responsibility for my actions. :mad:
 
While I understand your frustration Deliverer, I have to agree with CT. Do you really want to take a life for a material thing? I thought guns were used to save lives not cars. Please don't take me wrong, it would really tick me off as well and I don't have any sympathy for the BG, but there still is not a life threatned. I know you and others feel different, but that's just how I feel.

Sorry about the car :(.
 
Good Afternoon Everyone-

The tough "measure" that we're up against here is that we (as gunowners) would be "bringing the fight" to the person stealing the car (or motorcycle, or fishing tackle, or outdoor bar-b-que), rather than avoiding confrontation.

It would require us to explain to the responding officer why we ran out the front door of our homes grasping a 12-gauge shotgun.....Why didn't we stay safely inside and dial 9-1-1 to report an auto theft in-progress?

Believe me, if I saw someone stealing my hard-earned possessions, I would want to "convince them otherwise" with my hands comfortably around a firearm, but I don't think that would go over well in today's political climate....aahh, the old days! ;)

Regards,

~ Blue Jays ~
 
I take someone stealing my possessions as a personal insult. I would sleep very well knowing that I was protecting my property. The fact that the P.O.S. did not value his own life enough to consider the consequences of his action just lends credence to my actions. For the love of God folks, you got to take stand at some point in your life and stand up for what's yours!!!!! Tonight GTA tomorrow night car jacking and murder?! Not if I catch him first! The law allows me to use Deadly force to prevent property theft - I'm prosecuting to the full extent of the law!

NO QUARTER!!!

canis

(Perhaps I;ve had too much coffee today?)
 
I agree that it's not real nice to shoot someone over a piece of property, but if you see someone in your yard stealing you car, are you saying that you should just dial 911 without even leaning out the window to say, "Please stop taking my car?" Would the response be, "Make me!"? I mean, 911 response times even of the "I'm being killed right now" type are still usually enough time for a savvy thief to take your car and scoot. Now I'm not saying that you should just lean out the bedroom window and let 'em have it, but if thieves know that you, by law, are not allowed to defend your property in any way, shape, or form, then wouldn't that just encourage thievery? Oh wait, it already does. Why not just leave your keys in the ignition with the door unlocked, because the time it takes for them to hotwire your car is a longer time that they will be on your property, where they might stub their toe and subsequently sue you, the property owner, for pain, suffering and lost income? I'm being (slightly) sarcastic, but it appears that the inmates are running the asylum. Can't believe I just now noticed that. For the record, no, I don't think it's a good idea shooting a fleeing perp. However, the idea that I'm somehow supposed to sit by while they help themselves to my stuff doesn't sit well with me.
 
I find Carl to be a most reasonable guy and he is very well trained.

Some items to consider. In TX, even if you are no-billed, it will cost you about $5000 in legal fees.

If you go to court, look at $20,000 to $100K.

Also, it is nice to chest pound and proclaim you will just shoot them.

I recommend Deadly Force Encounters : What C0PS Need to Know to Mentally and Physically Prepare
for and Survive a Gunfight
by Alexis, Dr. Artwohl, Loren W. Christensen

While aimed at cops, it points out that most people have serious psychological consequences after shooting someone and so does your family.

Being a psychologist, I assure you that they aren't trivial and I'm not going to be impressed by more chest pounding that says you
aren't going to be affects as you are a mighty man.

Last look at the Saustrop case on tx.guns -
you want that kind of hassle?

While you can use deadly force in some situations - decide if your decision is emotional or rational? Is the outcome one to please your brain or your lower organ?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top