Posted: 6/5/2006 5:00:11 AM EDT
|
In most states, you can only use deadly force if your life is in danger. You cannot use deadly force to protect property. Hypothetically, if you have a CCW permit, and you have a firearm on you, and if a monster of a thug wanted to steal your car from the Wal-Mart parking lot...... Obviously the law says you can't draw down and kill him. I think you can't even "brandish" a firearm to discourage the theft. Does the law require you stay away and watch him take your car, or can you confront the "bad guy" and try to stop him some other way? Confronting the bad guy seems like it would be baiting him for a reason to use deadly force. Since I don't have a CCW permit, and haven't taken the associated safety course, I honestly don't know what the law says about this. Thanks |
Very valid point. Some states say deadly force may be used to protect property, others do not. Some say ok to prevent a felony by deadly force, others do not. Etc etc etc. DaddyDett |
|
Some states also make a difference as to if that car is in your driveway, on a public street or as mentioned in a walmart parking lot. The video I just watched for the tn ccw class had a guy inside his house and someone breaking into his car. Guy comes out of house to see what is going on and surprises burglar. If burglar runs away, let him run. If burglar turns and comes at you with a screw driver in hand things just changed from you checking on a noise to someone coming at your with a weapon and questionable intentions. Don't take the above as gospel, hometown forum should get you some advice and links to what those who will apply charges think about things. Plus your state should have an online ccw law page as well. |
That's funny, I know I watched the same video at my ccw class, I thought it was hilarious when that actor turned to the guy with the snub nosed revolver (IIRC) and said something like "what are you gonna do old man?!). |
|
This is a very touchy subject area, and full of "lawyer food". You have the right to protect your property regardless of where it is. If, in the process of confronting someone who is bothering your stuff, it turns into a dangerous situation for you and you are threatened with bodily harm, you then have the right to defend yourself with deadly force. The lawyers will say you baited the bad guy and then took him out, but that is only after he attempted to commit a crime by screwing around with stuff that did not belong to him. Bad guy gets what he came for...case closed. Bryan |
| 2 more cents ... I'm not killing anyone over property. That being said ... IF, during the robbery/theft, I felt in fear of death or grave bodily harm to myself or those I was responsible to protect ... I would certainly consider the use of deadly force as a method of protection. THAT is NOT the same thing as shooting someone over property. Stay safe |
| How is he going to steal your car from you? If he is carrying a weapon and points it at you/threatens you I would say that is justification for use of dealdy force. Then it is not property crime, it is protection from death/great bodily harm. If he is unarmed, then pepper spray him. |
Is it legal to approach a guy in the process of stealing your car and hose him with pepper spray? I thought pepper spray was for defensive use only too. |
|
In La I can attempt to make a citizens arrest for a felony that I witness. I would do this. If the perp turns to me with anything hard or metal in his hands, reaches for a pocket or is big enough that I can be in reasonable fear of my life or serious bodily harm, he's gonna find 6 or 7 230gr Gold Dots in him. That's just how it works here, though. Brian  Oh, and if I am in the car and he tries to steal it, that is an automatic ticket to the grave. The whole "Shoot the Carjacker" law and stuff. 
|
|
In Kentucky the law says you can use physical force to prevent the theft of your property or to prevent a crime. Our new castle law says if that person threatens you then you have no duty to retreat and can use deadly force. So technically in Kentucky you can do what you said. How it actually plays out in the courts of course is a different story. In your situation the best option under Kentucky's new law is for you to jump into the car. Then if the perp even tries to get into your vehicle you are justified in using deadly force. The law specifically states that someone "attempting" to break into some place they shouldn't be is found to be committing a violent act to which deadly force is justified. The law specifically says an occupied vehicle counts as a dwelling. |
|
As others have said, let it go. Take the time to get a really good look at the thief so that you can give the cops what they need. Call the cops. If luck is on your side, they will pick him up shortly after leaving the parking lot. Now, if you were to use your firearm, besides the legal complications, there are good reasons why you might live to regret doing so. Consider the following: There is a good chance that you would end up shooting the thief either in your car, or if outside, that he would find his way inside trying to hide/get away. A good hollow-point round (or two) will make sizable holes. Some of these holes might end up in your car as rounds miss/go through. Even if you don't make big holes in your car, you will make them in the thief, and a lot of his blood is going to pour/spray around inside your car. When the cops arrive, thy are going to take the thief (or his remains), your gun, you and your car to the local lockup until they have sorted out what exactly happened. Now, assuming the best, a few hours later, you will go home. The rest will stay with them as evidence. Your car will end up in a police impound yard, probably sitting in the sun. When you get it back (maybe several weeks later), you will wish the thief had taken it away. It will STINK, it will be covered in dried and baked in blood. It may have big holes in the upholstery, maybe even enough to destroy wiring/electronics so that it doesn't even run. You will have long and unpleasant arguments with your insurance, who will argue that you caused the damage, so its your responsibility to correct it. Your finance company won't care - you still have the car, they will still want paying. Life will suck. Let the bastard have it. Let your insurance company and the cops do their jobs. Anything else is just not worth it. |
COLORADO STATUTES REGARDING DEADLY PHYSICAL FORCE AND CARRYING CONCEALED FIREARMS 18-1-704 Use Of Physical Force In Defense Of A Person 1. Except as provided in subsections (2) and (3) of this section, a person is justified in using physical force upon another person in order to defend himself or a third person from what he reasonably believes to be the use or imminent use of unlawful physical force by that other person, and he may use a degree of force which he reasonably believes to be necessary for that purpose. 2. Deadly physical force may be used only if a person reasonably believes a lesser degree of force is inadequate and: a) The actor has reasonable grounds to believe, and does believe, that he or another person is in imminent danger of being killed or of receiving great bodily injury; or b) The other person is using or reasonably appears about to use physical force against an occupant of a dwelling or business establishment while committing or attempting to commit burglary as defined in sections 18-4-202 to 184-204; or c) The other person is committing or reasonably appears about to commit kidnapping as defined in section 18-3-301 or 18-3-302, robbery as defined in section 184-301 or 184-302, sexual assault as set forth in section 18-3-402 or 18-3-403, or assault as defined in sections 18-3-202 or 18-3-203. 3. Notwithstanding the provisions of subsection (1) of this section, a person is not justified in using physical force if: a) With intent to cause bodily injury or death to another person, he provokes the use of unlawful physical force by that other person; or b) He is the initial aggressor, except that his use of physical force upon another person under the circumstances is justifiable if he withdraws from the encounter and effectively communicates to the other person his intent to do so, but the latter nevertheless continues or threatens the use of unlawful physical force; or c) The physical force involved is the product of a combat by agreement not specifically authorized by law. 18-1-704.5 Use Of Deadly Physical Force Against An Intruder (“Make My Day law”) 1. The general assembly hereby recognizes that the citizens of Colorado have a right to expect absolute safety within their own homes. 2. Notwithstanding the provisions of section 18-1-704, any occupant of a dwelling is justified in using any degree of physical force, including deadly physical force, against another person when that other person has made an unlawful entry into the dwelling, and when the occupant has a reasonable belief that such other person has committed a crime in the dwelling in addition to the uninvited entry, or is committing or intends to commit a crime against a person or property in addition to the uninvited entry, and when the occupant reasonably believes that such other person might use any physical force, no matter how slight, against any occupant. 3. Any occupant of a dwelling using physical force, including deadly physical force, in accordance with the provisions or subsection (2) of this section shall be immune from criminal prosecution for the use of such force. 4. Any occupant of a dwelling using physical force, including deadly physical force, in accordance with the provisions of subsection (2) of this section shall be immune from any civil liability for injuries or death resulting from the use of such force. 18-1-705 Use Of Physical Force In Defense Of Premises A person in possession or control of any building, realty, or other premises, or a person who is licensed or privileged to be thereon, is justified in using reasonable and appropriate physical force upon another person when and to the extent that it is reasonably necessary to prevent or terminate what he reasonably believes to be the commission or attempted commission of an unlawful trespass by the other person in or upon the building, realty, or premises. However, he may use deadly force only in defense of himself or another as described in section 18-1-704, or when he reasonably believes it necessary to prevent what he reasonably believes to be an attempt by the trespasser to commit first degree arson. 18-1-706 Use of Physical Force in Defense of Property A person is justified in using reasonably and appropriate physical force upon another person when and to the extent that he reasonably believes it necessary to prevent what he reasonably believes to be an attempt by the other person to commit theft, criminal mischief, or criminal tampering involving property, but he may use deadly physical force under these circumstances only in defense of himself or another as described in section 18-1-704. 18-1-707 Use Of Physical Force In Making An Arrest Or In Preventing An Escape 1. Except as provided in subsection (2) of this section, a peace officer is justified in using reasonable and appropriate physical force upon another person when and to the extent that he reasonably believes it necessary: a) To effect an arrest or to prevent the escape from custody of an arrested person unless he knows that the arrest is unauthorized; or b) To defend himself or a third person from what he reasonably believes to be the use or imminent use of physical force while effecting or attempting to effect such an arrest or while preventing or attempting to prevent such an escape. 2. A peace officer is justified in using deadly physical force upon another person for a purpose specified in subsection (1) of this section only when he reasonably believes that it is necessary: a) To defend himself or a third person from what he reasonably believes to be the use or imminent use of deadly physical force; or b) To effect an arrest, or to prevent the escape from custody, of a person whom he reasonably believes: i) Has committed or attempted to commit a felony involving the use or threatened use of a deadly weapon; or ii) Is attempting to escape by the use of a deadly weapon; or iii) Otherwise indicates, except through a motor vehicle violation, that he is likely to endanger human life or to inflict serious bodily injury to another unless apprehended without delay. 3. Nothing in subsection (2)(b) of this section shall be deemed to constitute justification for reckless or criminally negligent conduct by a peace officer amounting to an offense against or with respect to innocent persons whom he is not seeking to arrest or retain in custody. 4. For purposes of this section, a reasonable belief that a person has committed an offense means a reasonable belief in facts or circumstances, which if true would in law constitute an offense. If the believed facts or circumstances would not in law constitute an offense, an erroneous though not unreasonable belief that the law is otherwise does not render justifiable the use of force to make an arrest or to prevent an escape from custody. A peace officer who is effecting an arrest pursuant to a warrant is justified in using the physical force prescribed in subsections (1) and (2) of this section unless the warrant is invalid and is known by the officer to be invalid. 5. Except as provided in subsection (6) of this section, a person who has been directed by a peace officer to assist him to effect an arrest or to prevent an escape from custody is justified in using reasonable and appropriate physical force when and to the extent that he reasonably believes that force to be necessary to carry out the peace officer’s direction, unless he knows that the arrest or prospective arrest is not authorized. 6. A person who has been directed to assist a peace officer under circumstances specified in subsection (5) of this section may use deadly physical force to effect an arrest or to prevent an escape only when: a) He reasonably believes that force to be necessary to defend himself or a third person from what he reasonably believes to be the use or imminent use of deadly physical force; or b) He is directed or authorized by the peace officer to use deadly physical force and does not know, if that happens to be the case, that the peace officer himself is not authorized to use deadly physical force under the circumstances. 7. A private person acting on his own account is justified in using reasonable and appropriate physical force upon another person when and to the extent that he reasonably believes it necessary to effect an arrest, or to prevent the escape from custody of an arrested person who has committed an offense in his presence; but he is justified in using deadly physical force for the purpose only when he reasonably believes it necessary to defend himself or a third person from what he reasonably believes to be the use or imminent use of deadly physical force. 8. A guard or peace officer employed in a detention facility is justified: a) In using deadly physical force when he reasonably believes it necessary to prevent the escape of a prisoner convicted of, charged with, or held for a felony, or confined under the maximum security rules of any detention facility as such facility is defined in subsection (9) of this section. b) In using reasonable and appropriate physical force, but not deadly physical force, in all other circumstances when and to the extent that he reasonably believes it necessary to prevent what he reasonably believes to be the escape of a prisoner from a detention facility. 9. “Detention facility” as used in subsection (8) of this section means any place maintained for the confinement, pursuant to law, of persons charged with or convicted of an offense, held pursuant to the “Colorado Children’s Code,” held for extradition, or otherwise confined pursuant to an order of a court. |
|
In Michigan - as of now - you can't shoot someone to protect property. But you can "brandish" (hate that term) and /or shoot them if your life (or someone else's*) is in jeopardy. *We are seeing in the case of the idiot rapper "Proof"'s demise, that since the guy who shot him isn't being prosecuted for shooting him in defense of the unfortunate veteran (who Proof killed execution style), even though it happened in blue-state MI, in the heart of Detroit, that we still have the right to defend ourselves and others if needs be. Sorry if that sentence is convoluted, I have a lot on my mind. 
|
Fair enough. Just don't expect anybody to ever help your wife/girlfriend if she's ever subdued and raped and you're not there to help her. 
|
...Not only that, but if someone had their arm cocked with a Molotov cocktail ready to immolate my house or something near to me, they get bullets. |
Depends on your state's legal definition. We were just discussing this matter in the GA forum this thread. I would imagine that being forced out of my car by someone would cause me to fear for my life. |
|
Georgia just passed the "stand your ground" law - which is an amendment to self-defense laws: BE IT ENACTED BY THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF GEORGIA: SECTION 1. Article 2 of Chapter 3 of Title 16 of the Official Code of Georgia Annotated, relating to justification and excuse as a defense to certain crimes, is amended by inserting immediately following Code Section 16-3-23 a new Code section to read as follows: "16-3-23.1. A person who uses threats or force in accordance with Code Section 16-3-21, relating to the use of force in defense of self or others, Code Section 16-3-23, relating to the use of force in defense of a habitation, or Code Section 16-3-24, relating to the use of force in defense of property other than a habitation, has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground and use force as provided in said Code sections, including deadly force." |
|
FWIW, here is what the law states in our liberal commie corner of the world: 720 ILCS 5/7-3. Use of force in defense of other property. (a) A person is justified in the use of force against another when and to the extent that he reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to prevent or terminate such other's trespass on or other tortious or criminal interference with either real property (other than a dwelling) or personal property, lawfully in his possession or in the possession of another who is a member of his immediate family or household or of a person whose property he has a legal duty to protect. However, he is justified in the use of force which is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm only if he reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent the commission of a forcible felony. (b) In no case shall any act involving the use of force justified under this Section give rise to any claim or liability brought by or on behalf of any person acting within the definition of "aggressor" set forth in Section 7-4 of this Article, or the estate, spouse, or other family member of such a person, against the person or estate of the person using such justified force, unless the use of force involves willful or wanton misconduct. Robbery/Hijacking are forcible felonies but they require the victim's presence and some sort of violence or threats of violence: Sec. 18‑1. Robbery. (a) A person commits robbery when he or she takes property, except a motor vehicle covered by Section 18‑3 or 18‑4, from the person or presence of another by the use of force or by threatening the imminent use of force. (720 ILCS 5/18‑3) Sec. 18‑3. Vehicular hijacking. (a) A person commits vehicular hijacking when he or she takes a motor vehicle from the person or the immediate presence of another by the use of force or by threatening the imminent use of force. A plain Jane motor vehicle theft is a felony if the car is worth more than $10 grand, but that wouldn't qualify for a forciable felony. So, it looks like, at least in IL, the perp has to either make some agressive act of violence towards you or at least threaten violence (and the threat be credible most likely) for you to be justified in using deadly force. |
|
If it were me, and I came out of WalMart and saw someone breaking into my car then I'd holler at them to get away from my car. If they ignored me and stole it anyways, then I'd be on the phone to the police as I watched them drive off. If they came after me then I'd defend myself (after meeting my legal obligation to retreat). Most likely scenario though is that as soon as you holler at them they'll drop what they're doing and haul ass, in which case I'd be on the phone with the police giving a description and direction that they headed in. my $.02 |
|
First, let me say that I wish every state was Texas. (I'm starting to sound like a broken record, as I said that in someone else's thread) Second, I wasn't asking if it was legal to pull the gun and shoot someone stealing my car. I know that in most states, that is NOT legal. Normally, if a person sees a thug trying to steal their car, the person would confront the thug and try to stop him. I was wondering if a person with a CCW and who was packing could even confront the bad guy, because it seems as though that could be interpreted as baiting. |
|
In Ohio, self defense can be used as an affirmative defense. Breaking it down a bit, the Ohio Supreme court has established that there are three conditions that must be met to establish that the defendant rightfully acted in self defense: 1. Defendant is not a fault (meaning, he didn't start the confrontation or wasn't the first aggressor). 2. Reaosnable and honest belief of danger (serious bodily harm or death - key word serious). 3. Duty to retreat (the victim must either leave -OR- voice his intention to end the confrontation). Where it gets tricky in the case of property, is #1. On the one hand, confronting the theif might seem like provoking to some people. Others might say the thief started the whole mess when he tried stealing your car. Thankfully, we CAN use reasonable force (not deadly) to protect property from harm. If the theif escalates it from there (you honestly believe you're about to be killed or seriously injured), then deadly force is justified. The point here is that deadly force is not justified to protect property alone. To summarize in Ohio - If the guy is stealing your car, you may confront him. You may use reasonable force (not deadly) to protect your property from harm. If the situation escalates to the point where you honestly believe that you are about to die or suffer serious bodily harm, shoot him. |
So.... can that be interpreted to mean that I can walk up and hose him with Fox Labs pepper spray. What is reasonable? I assume I can't go up and physically touch him. (legally) Or could I? For all of you people who would do nothing to protect your property..... Where do you live? When the SHTF, I need to know where to go to get food without getting shot. |
Eh, now we're getting down to nitty-gritty details. I'm not a lawyer, and I don't play one on TV. Reasonable means whatever a jury of your peers thinks it means. It's somewhere between gently placing your hand on his shoulder and bashing his head in with a lead pipe.  Personally, I'd give him verbal commands to stop, use physical force (minimal) as needed to stop him from harming my property, and shoot him if he decides to escalate it to the point of no return.  Basically, there's only so much I'm willing to do to protect property. I'm not going to immediately beat the guy within an inch of his life over it. I also don't PERSONALLY feel right about handing down the death penalty over theft. Shooting somebody creates a legal situation and expense too big to ignore or take lightly. I'd rather they steal my brand new car, than face murder or assault charges. I've never caught somebody in the act of stealing from me, so all I can do is speculate.
|
|
Copied verbatim from Montana's constitution: Section 12. Right to bear arms. The right of any person to keep or bear arms in defense of his own home, person, and property, or in aid of the civil power when thereto legally summoned, shall not be called in question, but nothing herein contained shall be held to permit the carrying of concealed weapons. Move to freedom |