Positive Miami Herald Story To Brighten Your Morning

It does warm my heart anytime a thug bleeds but I'm kinda surprised there are no charges being trumped up for shooting the fleeing misguided punk.

Here's another one: Spokane police give toy badge to grandma who shoots at intruder (career criminal) in her home.



"Spokane police officers gave Sandra Mize a junior police badge after she confronted an intruder breaking into her home."

http://www.spokesman.com/stories/2013/apr/04/grandmother-detains-intruder-at-gunpoint/

I'm not saying that she did everything by the THR book (especially clearing the house by herself) but it appears that the old cautionary saw about "don't expect the police to pat you on the back and give you an award for shooting an intruder" isn't always the case; sometimes that's exactly how it goes down.

^^ Seems I remember a similar story about a 92-year old lady shooting at (and missing) an intruder. The cops not only were supportive of her actions, they helped her to reload her .22LR revolver.

76shuvlinoff said:

It does warm my heart anytime a thug bleeds but I'm kinda surprised there are no charges being trumped up for shooting the fleeing misguided punk.

Click to expand...

Trumped up? If you fire at a fleeing robber, who is no longer threatening you or anyone else, you should be charged. That isn't self defense.

While I'm sure it has happened somewhere, can you imagine trying to prosecute a little old lady for shooting a much more able bodied crook? It would be a a**hole jury to convict Granny that she was wrong in shooting a thief.

I don't like the idea that a thief could steal from you and as long as he isn't posing a threat, you can't use a firearm to stop him.

During my CCW class I posed this situation to my teacher, "I go downstairs in the middle of the night, and a guy has my X-box in hand. He says, I'm not gonna hurt you, just rob you." Legally I would have to let him walk out and he'd be gone by the time I call the cops. Same goes for someone fleeing with my property. Shouldn't you be able to use the means at your disposal to recover your property?

fanchisimo said:

I don't like the idea that a thief could steal from you and as long as he isn't posing a threat, you can't use a firearm to stop him.

During my CCW class I posed this situation to my teacher, "I go downstairs in the middle of the night, and a guy has my X-box in hand. He says, I'm not gonna hurt you, just rob you." Legally I would have to let him walk out and he'd be gone by the time I call the cops. Same goes for someone fleeing with my property. Shouldn't you be able to use the means at your disposal to recover your property?

Click to expand...

If you found someone in your house at night as you said, you would have to trust that person and take them at their word. I don't think it would be reasonable to believe someone who is robbing you. They are robbing you... they are inherently untrustworthy.

RGWalt,
I never said I'd believe them or wouldn't take the shot, I just said legally I'm not supposed to.

Fanchisimo,

How much do you think your defense case would cost vs the X-box?

I know this discussion is more complicated than that but something to think about.

I just used the xbox as a general property argument. Let's say it was your Grandparents' wedding rings, or even your grandparents in a solid gold urn (just a joke). There are somethings that just can't be replaced. For instance, there is a guy that just recently posted that his revolver from his time on the police for was stolen from his son's place. He could get a same model revolver, but never the one he carried with him.

And in defense of my xbox, I'd have to think about it because of all the time I've logged into my saved games and other such things. Lol.

Franchisimo:

He says, I'm not gonna hurt you, just rob you."

Click to expand...

In most jurisdictions, the definition of "robbery" is the unlawful taking of property from another through the use of force, or the threat of the use of force, coupled with the apparent ability to actually implement that force. So, it's impossible to "rob" someone if you make that person believe there is no threat whatsoever to them.

Let's say someone does indeed make such a statement. In fact, let's say they're not even inside your home, but attempting to steal your truck. You are certainly within your rights to go outside and attempt to stop him, using "reasonable" force if necessary. If he escalates the situation by not backing down and instead using force, or the threat of force, to take the vehicle, what started out as "theft" is now becoming "robbery". You would then be able to keep ahead of him in the amount of force used, up to and including deadly force if required, to protect yourself.

Now, let's say it got to the point of you shooting him, and he died. While it's true that many will say he "was killed over a truck" (or a wallet, watch, pizza, or whatever), the truth would be that he was killed because he presented himself as ready and willing to kill for it himself. That is the crux of the situation.

There is no legal requirement (in most jurisdictions) to simply step back and surrender your property to anyone who is trying to rob you of it.

I think that most folks will not be thinking calmly and rationally when they find someone in the process of stealing their car, or property in or around their home. I have read of numerous incidents where a thief was actively fleeing, apparently no words were exchanged and no threats made to the homeowner or storeowner who fired his weapon at the fleeing thief. Because there was no threat at the moment, the homeowner or storeowner was charged with a crime. I can almost envision a case where I hear noise at night, emerge from my home armed and hyped and see two guys who have just loaded my motorcycle into their truck and are ready to leave. I yell stop and they ignore me. I shoot and kill the driver and the truck crashes, wrecking my motorcycle as well. Would I be charged? Probably. Should I have just let them leave since they pose no risk to me at that moment, and then collect from my insurance company for the loss? Again, probably. When I think about all that could happen, including my later spending thousands for a defense attorney, I know that I need to limit my armed response to INSIDE my home only. Anything else, unless I am trying to stop a situation where a family member might be hurt or kidnapped for example, would be foolish in the extreme.

Shouldn't you be able to use the means at your disposal to recover your property?

Click to expand...

Using deadly force to recover property is morally bankrupt. As Kathy Jackson notes on her web site:

You may legally use deadly force only when there is an immediate and otherwise unavoidable danger of death or grave bodily harm to the innocent.

Click to expand...

Interjecting yourself into a bad situation makes zero sense unless someone's life is at stake.

http://www.corneredcat.com/article/legal-concerns/ability-opportunity-jeopardy/

fanchisimo wrote:

I just used the xbox as a general property argument. Let's say it was your Grandparents' wedding rings, or even your grandparents in a solid gold urn (just a joke). There are somethings that just can't be replaced.

Click to expand...

Sentimental they most definitely are, but worthy of protecting with lethal force they are not.

Guys, not an attorney and this may be an ignorance question, but doesn't it depend on the State? I have heard of a TX case where a neighbor shot a perp coming out of a house next door (with loot in hand). The shooter was arrested (he had called 911 and all of it was recorded - even him saying "you're dead" before blazing away with the 12-gauge), but effectively got away with it. Not sure if it ever went to prosecution at all. Is that accurate/consistent for TX castle doctrine?

Here in FL (my emphasis added):

776.013 Home protection; use of deadly force; presumption of fear of death or great bodily harm.—

(1) A person is presumed to have held a reasonable fear of imminent peril of death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another when using defensive force that is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm to another if:

(a) The person against whom the defensive force was used was and forcibly entered, a dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle, or if that person had removed or was attempting to remove another against that person’s will from the dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle; and

(b) The person who uses defensive force knew or had reason to believe that an unlawful and forcible entry or unlawful and forcible act was occurring or had occurred.

(it goes on to list qualifiers - LEO, someone lawfully allowed to be there, etc.)

To several points/posts above, the legal defense if arrested is likely much more expensive than any items being removed, and the text in 1.a and 1.b appears to indicate that if someone unlawfully breaks into your home and either threatens you or intends to remove you against your will, you can use force to defend. Al Thompson is right and I can't find anything that says stealing your "stuff" is a reason to engage the perp, but many here simply tell the LEOs that they "felt" threatened and used force to protect their family (they probably shouldn't say anything without a lawyer present but that's for another thread).

Fine line, but if someone breaks into my house and steps one foot on the stairs/approaches where my family sleeps, I'll call 911, shoot, then take my chances with a jury if necessary. The cost of a legal process does not outweigh the risk of GBH to my wife and children, and you'll have to pardon me if I don't believe a perp if he states he has no intention of harm. Bovine fecal.

I'd bet real money the Miami shooter will not be arrested.

Akita1 wrote:

but many here simply tell the LEOs that they "felt" threatened and used force to protect their family (they probably shouldn't say anything without a lawyer present but that's for another thread).

Click to expand...

Personally, I operate under the assumption that I will likely be required to prove that in a court of law.

Vito writes:

I yell stop and they ignore me. I shoot and kill the driver and the truck crashes, wrecking my motorcycle as well.

Click to expand...

There are few jurisdictions in which your shooting the driver of a vehicle fleeing the scene of a theft would be lawful, and probably none in which it would be strategically wise.

Now, if the driver attempts to run you down...

I don't like the idea that a thief could steal from you and as long as he isn't posing a threat, you can't use a firearm to stop him.

During my CCW class I posed this situation to my teacher, "I go downstairs in the middle of the night, and a guy has my X-box in hand. He says, I'm not gonna hurt you, just rob you." Legally I would have to let him walk out and he'd be gone by the time I call the cops. Same goes for someone fleeing with my property. Shouldn't you be able to use the means at your disposal to recover your property?

Click to expand...

I am absolutely stunned that no one has seen the significance of this hypothetical situation. It is not about the property or even the crime of robbery, it is about a criminal telling you that he is re-writing the rules - and yes, there are rules for this situation. The robber is supposed to flee, and if he takes the property with him then I let him run for I'm not going to hammer someone for an X-Box or any other property. If he attacks me, then I shoot. However, if he stands there and claims the right to violate my home and my rights and then demonstrates an utter disrespect for me and my privacy....then he has crossed into a very dark place. Let me rephrase:

1. If he runs, then I know he respects me. (and he gets a free X-Box)
2. If he attacks, then I shoot (but he has shown he still respects my ability to hurt him so I hope I don't kill him)
3. If he disrespects me by telling me he can rob me at will, then he has shown that he thinks of me like I think of sheep who are raised to be sheared and eventually slaughtered.

Please think about it.

I guess I must clarify my position. I will obey the law, and not shoot the guy unless my wife or I am being threatened since it is the law. I just believe that you should have the right to defend or recover your property with as much force as you would a person. Ultimately I think that a person that breaks into someone's house is rolling the dice with their own life, and should have no grounds for any kind of reprisal for the person that uses force to deal with the perpetrator, criminal or civil. Another question, where are pets in this, are they considered property or a living thing?

fanchisimo wrote:

I just believe that you should have the right to defend or recover your property with as much force as you would a person.

Click to expand...

That is what insurance is for. Property can be replaced. Life and limb can not. I for one, as do many state legislatures, do not agree that mere belongings...like a TV or a car stereo... are worth defending with lethal force.

MedWheeler said:

^^ Seems I remember a similar story about a 92-year old lady shooting at (and missing) an intruder. The cops not only were supportive of her actions, they helped her to reload her .22LR revolver.

Click to expand...

Yup. And in that case, grannie used an old school Rohm revolver to do it.

Civilization is gone when we are expected to stand by helplessly as a thief walks away with our property. I will not go gently into that dark night.

Civilization is gone when we are expected to stand by helplessly as a thief walks away with our property. I will not go gently into that dark night.

Click to expand...

:banghead: Chest thumping. Pure and simple.

Shooting and killing someone for breaking into your car to steal your stereo or you walking into your home to find a burglar stealing your television will, at the very least, turn your life as you know it upside down, probably ruin you finacially...and likely result in serving a prison sentence for a very long time.

Protecting property is not a good enough reason to shot someone.

I guess you could put on a sign on the outside of your home saying: "The occupant of this house will use deadly force ONLY to protect against a direct threat to his life or the lives of his family" so that thieves will know that if they only come for your belongings they don't have to worry about their safety. Some of us might not want to wait to determine what are the true intentions of the person who has just forcibly broken into our home, but will feel compelled to take action as soon as we see the intruder. If the result of that action has negative consequences for the intruder, then so be it. I give the safety of my family and the sanctity of my home the benefit of the doubt. When King Leonidis said to the Persians "come and take it", he meant that they attempt to do so at their peril. If someone breaks into my home, they also do so at their peril.