User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 1/10/2006 1:33:30 PM EDT
[#1]
Bye.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/10/2006 1:33:59 PM EDT
[#2]
No.
Buying a new car is cheaper than renting a lawyer. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/10/2006 1:34:00 PM EDT
[#3]
Only if I'm armed with a RPG. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/10/2006 1:34:54 PM EDT
[#4]
No way.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/10/2006 1:35:02 PM EDT
[#5]
Probably no, unless its in Texas; where the whole neighborhood would come out to join you in shooting-up the carjacker. Then everyone would start to make fun of the guy who came out with the PPK. 
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/10/2006 1:35:03 PM EDT
[#6]
IBTP
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/10/2006 1:36:25 PM EDT
[#7]
What if you use the justification that you have a trunk gun in the vehicle, and if the carjacker found it he would use it to kill people? |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/10/2006 1:36:44 PM EDT
[#8]
No way!....Nuke em from space...its the only way to be sure...
Seriously, not a chance...unless my wife or kid are on board....then if I have a clear shot I think I would. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/10/2006 1:37:40 PM EDT
[#9]
If i was a hollywood action star, i'd probably shoot, but in real life, i'd just let them steal my car, call the police & let the insurance take care of it.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/10/2006 1:41:39 PM EDT
[#10]
'course not, timing is everything.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/10/2006 1:41:51 PM EDT
[#11]
In town, I would only shoot if I had a good shot and there were kids/girlfriend in
In the boonies? He is one dead fucker. This choice is due to collateral damage, but in that situation, I really doubt that I would be out of my truck without being shot or shooting the carjacker. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/10/2006 1:42:18 PM EDT
[#12]
Isn't it just possible that ANY answer here could be used against you in the future if you have the unfortunate scenario of having to use your gun?
What if you say yes, and the opposing attorney uses it to prove you're gun-happy? What if you say NO here, and you end up shooting in the same or near same scenario? They would go after why you changed your position.... I'm suggesting that it might be better to reserve "what would you do" for yourself to prevent anyone from ever accusing you of having a predetermined position on shoot/don't shoot scenarios. JMHO. HH |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/10/2006 1:43:14 PM EDT
[#13]
Just shoot him before he completes the jack.....
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/10/2006 1:43:43 PM EDT
[#14]
Only because my car is full of machineguns, who gives a shit about a car?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/10/2006 1:44:37 PM EDT
[#15]
Some criminal broke into a guy's truck one night, in downtown Fort Worth. He took property & started running away. The victim fired a few shots, hitting the criminal. The grand jury did not indict.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/10/2006 1:46:09 PM EDT
[#16]
You'd have to see my truck to fully understand my answer...
Now, what's the number for my insurance agent.. ? |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/10/2006 1:49:05 PM EDT
[#17]
+1 Then it turns into an etiquette question. Do you roll the window down before doing a mag dump? And is it polite to continue shooting once the jacker starts to fall? |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/10/2006 1:49:09 PM EDT
[#18]
I think my adrenaline would be pumping far too much for me to actually become vindictive/angry and subsequently fire at him.
not to mention the ensuing legal battle |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/10/2006 1:49:41 PM EDT
[#19]
The family of the driver would hire an attorney who would use the fact that you not only had a gun on you, but also a "trunk gun" to show that you are a gun toting whacko who was just itching to kill someone. Jury finds you responsible for the wrongful death, and you now owe the car jacker's family $12 million. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/10/2006 1:50:57 PM EDT
[#20]
Let him go...Once he drives away the threat to you is gone and the anti gun law enforcement people here in Michigan would have a field day with you...It would be like a wet dream come true for them.
You all remember that guy in someother country who grew tired of being car jacked so he devised a flame thrower unit that engulfed the drivers door (outside) with flames? I heard he used it once, never heard the out come of the story. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/10/2006 1:53:29 PM EDT
[#21]
I would remind him to burn it to get rid of any evidence, when he is through with it.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/10/2006 1:54:46 PM EDT
[#22]
Are you kidding? That is not "justifcation" to use deadly force in any state I am aware of. 
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/10/2006 1:55:10 PM EDT
[#23]
well I would shoot, I have in the past and yes most likely they will sue in civi court, so to stop this make sure the fellow is dead. I've been sued but only buy the guy that lived, none of the dead ones family sued, and that time the insurance company caved before we even made it to court
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/10/2006 1:57:49 PM EDT
[#24]
Depends on how good a lawyer you have ...
Basically .. the felony has already been committed so using deadly force is not preventing a felony ... merely retaliation. A good lawyer could argue the deranged lunatic that stole your car was out to kill and hurt others so there if you shot and killed him you did prevent other felonies ... |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/10/2006 1:58:49 PM EDT
[#25]
to keep a firearm from being stolen yes it is, I have and was told by a judge I did the right thing |
||
|
|
|
Posted: 1/10/2006 2:00:41 PM EDT
[#26]
HELL NO!
unless my wife is in the car, then I shoot to get him to stop and tell him, this isn't a loan Gary |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/10/2006 2:01:29 PM EDT
[#27]
wrong, your preventing him from getting away and the act of the felony is in progress as he is driveing away, so shooting the guy(in TX) as he's driveing away is allowed |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/10/2006 2:03:09 PM EDT
[#28]
So removing you from you car, hopping inside and leaving the scene is not assault, brandishing a weapon, grand theft, or anything like that? |
||
|
|
|
Posted: 1/10/2006 2:10:01 PM EDT
[#29]
sure it is |
|||
|
|
|
Posted: 1/10/2006 2:16:34 PM EDT
[#30]
Good shoot in Texas.
Sec. 9.41. PROTECTION OF ONE'S OWN PROPERTY. (a) A person in lawful possession of land or tangible, movable property is justified in using force against another when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to prevent or terminate the other's trespass on the land or unlawful interference with the property. ~ (b) A person unlawfully dispossessed of land or tangible, movable property by another is justified in using force against the other when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to reenter the land or recover the property if the actor uses the force immediately or in fresh pursuit after the dispossession and: ~ ~ (1) the actor reasonably believes the other had no claim of right when he dispossessed the actor; or ~ ~ (2) the other accomplished the dispossession by using force, threat, or fraud against the actor. Sec. 9.42. DEADLY FORCE TO PROTECT PROPERTY. A person is justified in using deadly force against another to protect land or tangible, movable property: ~ ~ (1) if he would be justified in using force against the other under Section 9.41; and ~ ~ (2) when and to the degree he reasonably believes the deadly force is immediately necessary: ~ ~ ~ (A) to prevent the other's imminent commission of arson, burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, theft during the nighttime, or criminal mischief during the nighttime; or ~ ~ ~ (B) to prevent the other who is fleeing immediately after committing burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, or theft during the nighttime from escaping with the property; and ~ ~ (3) he reasonably believes that: ~ ~ ~ (A) the land or property cannot be protected or recovered by any other means; or ~ ~ ~ (B) the use of force other than deadly force to protect or recover the land or property would expose the actor or another to a substantial risk of death or serious bodily injury. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/10/2006 2:22:17 PM EDT
[#31]
I'm moving to Texas!
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/10/2006 2:25:41 PM EDT
[#32]
come on down
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/10/2006 2:28:01 PM EDT
[#33]
Not if he was driving away unless you there were circumstances that would alter the situation I.E. firearms in the vehicle being stolen, baby in the back seat, homicidal maniac screaming he was driving off to kill his ex-wife etc.
The only justification I can see allowing you to shoot would be to prevent a greater crime from being committed. Kinda like the cops do when they shoot at someone fleeing the scene.....
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/10/2006 2:30:29 PM EDT
[#34]
well in Texas it's ok, the law is a couple of posts up |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/10/2006 2:33:27 PM EDT
[#35]
I would not shoot after the fact. Too little too late.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/10/2006 2:36:02 PM EDT
[#36]
No!
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/10/2006 2:42:58 PM EDT
[#37]
Being legal doesn't make it a good idea. The lawsuit from the family of the carjacker will bankrupt you, even in Texas. The first time a CHL in Texas used deadly force was when a large man attacked the driver of a car who was not in a position to drive off. As he was beating the driver in the face, the driver opened fire and killed his attacker. Good shoot? Sure, in the sense that he wasn't charged with a crime. But defending himself in the subsequent lawsuit forced him into bankruptcy. You'd be insane to use deadly force to stop someone from stealing your car. Your lawyer will run you $300 an hour with easily 100+ hours to defend you in a civil suit. We ran a list of scenarios in the Texas forum: Deadly force scenarios and while there were several scenarios where force was considered legal, there were very few that wouldn't put you on the losing end of a lawsuit. |
||
|
|
|
Posted: 1/10/2006 2:44:46 PM EDT
[#38]
Texas' law seems unique for sure.
Generally, under the hypo, if there is no threat of imminent bodily injury or death, deadly force is not justified, and never to protect property. Generally, you may THREATEN deadly force to protect property, but that's it. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/10/2006 2:47:22 PM EDT
[#39]
If you're shooting at the car driving away .
You've already missed the opportunity for a justifiable shoot . |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/10/2006 2:48:05 PM EDT
[#40]
ETA your scenario is a no shoot. However when actually being jacked, dood b ded! |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/10/2006 2:54:44 PM EDT
[#41]
What if you shoot during the jacking because your wife is in the car and you have a infant strapped in the car seat. Wouldn't you be defending against a kidnapping then?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/10/2006 3:35:23 PM EDT
[#42]
Absolutely. And in that case, who gives a shit what the law says? |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/10/2006 3:38:14 PM EDT
[#43]
nah. unless family was in the car. but if hes taking the care, theres no way im going to deal with all the bull shit for killing a pos staling my car. ill let him drive away. im not in harms way.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/10/2006 3:39:23 PM EDT
[#44]
I would want to, but the backassward United States legal process would fuck me a rough one. -
Kool-Aid (LCA ts1337) |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/10/2006 4:03:08 PM EDT
[#45]
|
||
|
|
|
Posted: 1/10/2006 4:06:41 PM EDT
[#46]
+1 |
||
|
|
|
Posted: 1/10/2006 4:10:58 PM EDT
[#47]
Shoot 'em before you get out of the car. justifiable in that scenario.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/10/2006 4:15:23 PM EDT
[#48]
Seems OJ has not paid anything to the Brown or Goldman families. So what if I have a judgment against me. I am Alive the perp is dead. For the record this is a no shoot situation, |
||
|
|
|
Posted: 1/10/2006 4:22:14 PM EDT
[#49]
Nope.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/10/2006 4:24:09 PM EDT
[#50]
I would hit my remote kill switch. When the BG exits the truck I would shoot him dead then place a stolen handgun in his hand.
Fuck me I'm all talk. I KID! I KID! |
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
