Attempted Theft From Your Car Parked Outside = Armed Confrontation?

[Kleanbore]

Posted by JustinJ: LE responding to such a call are potentially risking their lives as well but they have made the decision to do so by becoming a cop in the first place. If a citizen wants to assume the same risk it should be his right.

What the civilian lacks is training, approved policy, backup, contact with a dispatcher, a sworn duty, indemnification, and coverage for injury.

Having those things, a sworn officer is unlikely to confront a potentially violent actor alone at night.

Not having those things, the civilian who opts to confront a potential criminal at night while not knowing who else is out there armed with what assumes considerably more risk than the sworn officer who properly performs his or her risky duty.

All that aside, the OP did not ask what risks he has the right to assume.

 

[GEM]

The human mind has two decision processes:

1. Quick and automatic - sometimes and usually emotional and without realistic risk assessment.

2. Slower and more cognitive. Good risk assessment

Training can move the good nonemotional risk assessment into the quick and automatic processing.

We also have circuitry that rewards us for killing violators of our territory. Gives us a pleasure blast for tribal defense (or why do it?). Thus, contemplating killing the guy stealing the GPS lights up these systems and we can't consider not rushing into action.

Choose your system. Is territorial violation without immediate personal threat, worth risking harm to yourself and consequences to your family over fairly trivial property. The property defense laws with lethal force were developed when survival was iffy and a property loss (cattle, tools) could put you at serious later risk. Since that is not the case with your GPS, a property defense may not make rational sense based on total outcome (if you get over your pride).

 

[Averageman]

Essentially I dont want to shoot anyone and I would prefer not to kill them.
I would like to point out that, in the dark; inside or on my property I have no way to understand your intent.
Certainly I can call 911 and the responce time here is usually 20 minutes or more here where I live. After that call is made, I am left with the decision and the responce time of 20 minutes to deal with.
Nothing I own is worth the crimminals life, but unfortunatly the crimminal may feel that it is.
I have a home security system, a vehicle security system, security lights, reenforced doors and two noisy dogs.
I cannot decide for the crimminal what his life is truely worth, but after taking all precautions, calling 911, paying for firearms training, and getting my Concealed Carry Licence what am I to do until the Police show up?
I cannot decide what the crimminals life is worth, but I have served my country for most of my life, I pay my taxes and conduct all of my business in an ethical manner. I've never taken public assistance, workmans compensation or unemployment.
I dont want to shoot anyone and I certainly dont want to kill anyone, but....
after doing all of the above and still having my vehicle damaged and property stolen, after waiting for the Police and seeing the damage and loss I can certainly understand the folks that do.

 

[JustinJ]

What the civilian lacks is training, approved policy, backup, contact with a dispatcher, a sworn duty, indemnification, and coverage for injury.

So that is the criteria for it being a wise decision to face said criminal in spite of risk of injury or legal trouble? There are certainly some with training that exceeds what most LE receive. Communication with a dispatch could certainly prove of little use to a cop depending on how far from assistance he is. Legal risk varies but case and written law in my state provides a fair level of protection and even indemnification in some situations. A citizen can also get liability insurance for concealed carry and of course health insurance. Depending on the situation and environment a citizen may even have tactical advantages over a cop rolling up and announcing his presence to the world.

 

[JRH6856]

As an independent contractor, if I don't work, I don't get paid, so there is a definite financial incentive to not get jury duty. If I am between contracts, I don't have a problem with it,

Having been self employed for over half of my working life, I do understand that situation. I was fortunate enough to either get called between contracts or when my workload was light.

 

[Kleanbore]

Posted by Averageman: I dont want to shoot anyone and I certainly dont want to kill anyone, but....
after doing all of the above and still having my vehicle damaged and property stolen, after waiting for the Police and seeing the damage and loss I can certainly understand the folks that do.

I have no difficulty in understanding the folks that do.

As a matter of fact, I have never had any reason to believe that the actions of man from Watauga were less than lawful.

I do imagine, however, that he has reflected many times since about how his strategy was just plain dumb.

As Fred put it, it was Not Smart.

 

[GEM]

Certainly I can call 911 and the responce time here is usually 20 minutes or more here where I live. After that call is made, I am left with the decision and the responce time of 20 minutes to deal with.

Nothing to keep you from a safe position to loudly informing the BG that that police are on their way and you are armed.

Not by racking your shotgun repeatedly though -

In a class, we confronted the property theft by continually yelling at him such things. We are in a position of cover.

 

[Godsgunman]

The right to bear arms is for protecting one's self or family. Everything I have been taught in my SD classes and my CC training is even though you have the right to defend yourself and family, if you leave the safety of your house and put yourself in danger, then you may have just compromised your right. If you are inside and the burglar is out in your car, your life is NOT in any emminant danger.
Call the cops, thats what they get paid to do. Nothing in my car is worth endangering my life or someone else's even if they are a theif. My insurance covers anything stolen from my vehicles. Im all for defending one's self and loved ones but in this instance to do anything to escalate the issue is reckless and stupid.

 

[Kleanbore]

Posted by JustinJ: So that [(training, approved policy, backup, contact with a dispatcher, a sworn duty, indemnification, and coverage for injury)] is the criteria for it being a wise decision to face said criminal in spite of risk of injury or legal trouble?

Training and policy are very important--it is critical is to know what one is doing--and so is backup. Where I live, an officer will not "face said criminal" alone; there is the risk of ambush, and the question of what to do with the suspect upon confrontation.

There are certainly some with training that exceeds what most LE receive.

Training in what?

Sworn duty is also key. The officer is paid to do it. The civilian can exercise the discretion to sit it out.

Another real advantage is a uniform--one in uniform is less apt to be shot by an armed citizen or by a first responder who has been summoned by someone else.

A citizen can also get liability insurance for concealed carry and of course health insurance.

Read the terms, and compare the coverage with the potential losses.

 

[CRF450808]

+1 on fandffourum: "I would call the police first, then grab my gun, and finally turn on the porch lights to make them aware of my presence. I would not engage in a gunfight or use deadly force unless I felt someone's life depended on it. If the burglars decided to enter your house after stealing from your car, then it would be a different story."

FYI>> some vehicles built in garage door opener will still open the garage door when the vehicle is off..
__________________

 

[Averageman]

Training in what?
Sworn duty is also key. The officer is paid to do it. The civilian can exercise the discretion to sit it out.
Another real advantage is a uniform--one in uniform is less apt to be shot by an armed citizen or by a first responder who has been summoned by someone else.

I have a sworn duty, I took it in front of God.
I am here to protect my Family, I am a Man.
If you care to breach the doors, or assault my property or those in my family, your fate is in your hands.

 

[vtuck2]

"I second that emotion"

Quote:
"Somehow I have trouble arriving at the conclusion that going outside your home, at night, with a firearm in hand, in order to attempt to confront an apparent thief, is a Good Idea..."

As a court interpreter for 30 years, I have been afforded a glimpse at both the civil and criminal legal systems that few can match.

You shoot some fool to keep him from stealing your Maserati?

Your attorney will end up with your Maserati. That's almost a given. The only real options at play are "did he keep you out of prison for your trouble?" or "did you lose your Maserati and your liberty, too?"

The only scenarios in which I would be confident to use deadly force are:

a) I'm inside my dwelling at night and somebody intrudes forceably;
b) I'm inside my business (day or night) and somebody attempts an armed robbery;
c) Somebody I love (wife or children) is being sexually assaulted, or assaulted with deadly force, and/or is being kidnapped;
d) When in public, somebody brandishes or aggresses with a deadly weapon;
d) Somebody brandishing a deadly weapon attempts to hijack my car;

I'm not even sure how I would react to "d) or e)". As to a) through c), those are the only scenarios in which I'd be willing to die, or kill (or risk going to prison). A) through c) are the only scenarios in which, in my mind, I would be free to act instinctively without thinking about stuff.

Quite a few years ago (10?) in Austin, Texas, which, contrary to the rest of Texas, is a "world of it's own", there was a case that all would do well to study and heed. I don't claim this narrative to be strictly accurate, but it is substantially so:

A CHL holder, and his girlfriend, (both totally stone cold sober), arrived back to his vehicle (a pickup truck) at about 3:30am after a night on the town.

There, they encountered a citizen of dubious character actively working to dismantle the CD player from the fellow's pickup truck.

The victim drew his weapon and confronted the thief, all while dialing 911. The thief simply walked away. Intent on seeing that justice be done, the victim, with 911 still on the line, began to follow the thief. This entourage briskly walked several blocks. Then the thief ducked into a dark alley. At this point, something happened, and the victim shot the thief, killing him.

Austin was, and is, a very gun un-friendly town. The at-that-time prosecutor went after the guy with a vengeance. To my knowledge, the "victim" (shooter) did indeed get no-billed. However, without being able to prove this, I suspect that he avoided prison only because he became a cause celebre (sorry no french accents or italics) among the gun totin' majority of Texans, who opened up their hearts (and wallets) which enabled him to mount a successful defense.

I wish I could remember the fellow's name. Without being able to prove this, I will wager that to this day he wishes bitterly that he'd done things a lot differently, notwithstanding that he ultimately did walk.

Just sayin'.

Vernon

 

[Averageman]

I have crawled down in to holes armed with a .45 and a prayer, looking for an enemy and to be quite honest hoping he was there.
If you have the Ba@@ to steal my property I certainly hope you have what it takes in court to admit to your crimes, if you live.

 

[Godsgunman]

Haha, but aren't all politicians crooks in some way or another?
Trust me, I'm as conservative as they come. Sometimes "vigilanteism" is needed to actually save lives, I'm just not one for potentially taking someone's life when it can be completely avoided by letting the police handle it. Now if the crook were to turn his attention to you and enter your house, well thats a whole new animal.

 

[Black Butte]

Here's the way Joe Horn decided to do it:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EcV2c6U2ej4

 

[vtuck2]

Deadly force in defense of property -- a very slippery slope

Here is a link to the Austin case.

The shooter's name was Paul A. Saustrop. Here is a discussion of it. The event occurred in about 1999 and the discussion was in about 2000.

To me, it is a perfect example of that slippery slope we slide down once we draw, the adrenalin kicks in, and the perpetrator fails to react the way the movies show he's supposed to.

V

http://thefiringline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=36623&page=2

 

[GEM]

Joe - Horn -He says that he regrets his actions nowadays. The main reason he got off was a self-defense claim and not a legal claim to be defending property.

Without the witness to that claim, he could have been in serious trouble - given his utterances.

So what decides the level of property you kill for.

1. Your TV
2. Someone running away the Mona Lisa
3. A 12 year old grabs a box of Almond Joys in your store and runs.
4. A 22 year old grabs a 6 pack and runs

All are property crimes - definitionally - would you kill them all?

 

[dprice3844444]

can't we just threaten them with a full sized pic of fred or kleanbore in a thong?just scream,if yall don't leave,your gonna get this?

 

[vtuck2]

Now THAT'S SCARY!

Quote:
"can't we just threaten them with a full sized pic of fred or kleanbore in a thong?just scream,if yall don't leave,your gonna get this?"

 

[Kleanbore]

Posted by Averageman: I have a sworn duty, I took it in front of God.

If one has taken an oath to enforce the laws of man, and that oath remains in force, he or she does not fall under our definition of "civilian" and does not have the option to avoid confrontation.

I am here to protect my Family, I am a Man.

All the more reason to refrain from unnecessarily and unwisely exposing yourself to imminent threat of death or serious, crippling bodily injury.

If you care to breach the doors, or assault my property or those in my family, your fate is in your hands.

And, of course, depending upon the circumstances, should you elect to venture outside to do something about someone fiddling with your tangible, movable property, your fate may be in the hands of the person or persons lurking out there whose presence is unknown to you.

Neither the firepower of your weapon nor your skill in using it nor your bravado can protect you from ambush or a crossfire, and after that happens, your family will have to protect themselves.

We honor those who go in harms way because it is their sworn duty, but we only pity those who do so because they do not know any better.

 

[Fred Fuller]

There has been a good bit of net discussion on the shooting of a teenager by a neighborhood watch leader in the town of Sanford, FL about two weeks ago. There's a lot that's still unknown in this situation, but it has provoked a good bit of emotion in the area and a certain amount on the web as well. So far, as far as I can tell, nothing about this has been posted on THR before now.

I don't know enough detail to offer an opinion at this point, but here's some of the information currently available - http://blogs.findlaw.com/blotter/2012/03/fl-teen-killed-by-neighborhood-watch-leader.html.

My point in posting this is that IMHO if you ever do have to fire in self defense, it's critical that you be able to clearly articulate after the fact all the reasons why you had no other choice save to employ deadly force, and you especially want the physical evidence to give mute testimony to the truth of your statements. In other words, you need to have your wits about you and not be running just on adrenalin or some other kind of unconscious autopilot when the crunch comes, to the best of your ability. Because adrenalin will most definitely mess with your mind and body. Your ability to make rational decisions and carry them through in a critical situation could well be affected.

Going looking for trouble often enough means you'll find it. In more ways than one.

This case is one I'll be watching as it evolves...

 

[sidheshooter]

Vernon,

That case sort of reminds me of one in my neck of the woods, only the guy doing the following and shooting was an off-duty cop. Same sort of scenario; late at night, leaving a bar, argument about attempted theft of a truck, guy takes off, cop chases him and then things get sketchy. Cop's side of story=furtive movement, so cop hoses him down with 180gr GDHP. Guy's side of story=cop just chased him and blasted him (and the walls of a neighborhood home that an acquaintance of mine was in).

Long story (very long and sordid) short, the cop walked; despite being drunk, in violation of departmental policy with regard to carrying in a bar, and failure to report the incident and fleeing the scene.

Honestly, the only reason that cop is a free man today is because of *excellent* legal defense (including Mas Ayoob, who's testimony, I am told, was instrumental in getting the guy acquitted. Having taken class from Mas, I believe it, let alone what little I know of the case).

But he will never again work in law enforcement, and he's probably pretty broke.

Btw, the other guy was hit in the head with the dept issue GDHP, and not only lived to sue, but ran off after taking the shot. There is a lesson to be learned there about handguns and predictable stopping power, for sure.

At any rate, I'd bet that the cop wishes he didn't chase that guy.

The easiest way to de-escalate a situation is not to escalate it in the first place. It would take a lot to get me to go outside the comfort of my home to confront someone (like arson, or some other potentially deadly threat).

Just another opinion.

 

[vtuck2]

Quote:
"Vernon,

That case sort of reminds me of one in my neck of the woods, only the guy doing the following and shooting was an off-duty cop. Same sort of scenario; late at night, leaving a bar, argument about attempted theft of a truck, guy takes off, cop chases him and then things get sketchy. Cop's side of story=furtive movement, so cop hoses him down with 180gr GDHP. Guy's side of story=cop just chased him and blasted him (and the walls of a neighborhood home that an acquaintance of mine was in).

Long story (very long and sordid) short, the cop walked; "

The thing is that "upstanding" people tend to be a little self-righteous in their revulsion of people who make their living lifting personal property that doesn't belong to them. But it is a fact that the window of justification for the use of deadly force - even in the most gun friendly states - is a narrow one - and it opens and closes in a heartbeat.

Shoot without justification - or before the window opens - or after it closes - and you're now prosecuted as a CRIMINAL. Many - perhaps most - self righteous, indignant, upstanding citizens need to understand - and never forget - that you don't have to FEEL like a criminal to be prosecuted and incarcerated - or even executed - as a criminal. Once you're in the slammer your story is the same as everybody else's: "I'm innocent." "I was framed". "I didn't get a fair trial". yada yada. But the corrections officers don't care. To them you're just fresh meat.

Humanitarian and philosophical considerations aside, that's not a risk I'd run for "principles", or my insured luxury car, never mind my CD player.

V

 

[BLB68]

It seems to me that securing your vehicle better is cheaper in the long run than legal fees.

 

[JohnKSa]

I usually pocket my LC9 and walk out to see what's going on. I honestly don't know what I'd do if someone was stealing from my vehicle...

You can bet that the bad guy has thought about what he would do if someone walks up on him while he's stealing from a vehicle.

You HOPE that his plan is to run, because if it's not, he's got a jump on you--he knows what he's going to do and you don't know what you're going to do. So he's going to be acting while you're deciding what to do.

You should have a plan.

To develop your plan, you should start by thinking through some possible scenarios and the possible outcomes of those scenarios based on how you choose to act in each scenario. You should think through the risks and consequences and use that information to develop your plan.

If you want my opinion, your plan shouldn't involve putting your life at risk if there's no need to do so. But that's your call, I guess.

I have to suspect that this is just politically-correct speech on his part or at the direction of his lawyer.

Two things.

1. He claimed self-defense and an off-duty cop who witnessed the shooting backed him up.

2. EVEN if, for the sake of argument, we accept the premise that it was just politically correct speech, there's still no denying that it kept him from having to go to trial. That's a pretty big dividend.

If Joe Horn had said, "Well, those SOBs deserved to die for breaking into my neighbor's house", there would be some panty waste liberal crying about how he violated the civil rights of the person by preventing them from being able to steal anymore.

Sometimes running your mouth can cost you a little embarrassment. Sometimes it can cost you everything you own in court costs. Sometimes it can even put you in jail.

It's smart to know what to say and what not to say. Even smarter to make sure your actions don't put you in a situation where you have to try to weasel-word your way out of a tight spot.