Deadly Force to Protect Property?

[M1911]

So if criminals begin walking in to homes with unlocked doors and merely stating very politely that they are going to take your money and possessions (with no physical threats of violence), you have no recourse but to let them do it (or hit them on the head with a whiffle-ball bat or some other non-lethal weapon, and hope they get annoyed enough to leave)???

You are being overly dramatic and are exaggerating the limitations.

In most states you can use force to defend your property (e.g., fists, feet, pepper spray, baton), but not deadly force.

As suggested above, however, you should consult with a knowledgeable criminal defense attorney in your state. The guy who did your will is undoubtedly a nice guy, but he probably does not understand the nuances of self defense law, nor does he understand the tenor of the DA and judges in your jurisdiction.

 

[Catherine]

Quote:

There are a lot of differences between states. You are responsible for reading and understanding your own code and should do so. You are typically not allowed to shoot a fleeing thief, but as a practical matter during a home invasion it's impossible to determine the motives of the intruders and you have to reasonably assume they're not there to make you tea and quietly pilfer a few things.

Quote:
I am beginning to really like texas...
Texas has cruddy open carry laws, unfortunately. I don't know why the GOP dominated government didn't change them.

~~~~~

Bingo!

Catherine

 

[kentucky_Dave]

An elaboration of the florida statutes:

776.012 Use of force in defense of person.--A person is justified in using force, except deadly force, against another when and to the extent that the person reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to defend himself or herself or another against the other's imminent use of unlawful force.
However, a person is justified in the use of deadly force and does not have a duty to retreat if:

(1) He or she reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony;

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 in the process of unlawfully and forcefully entering, or had unlawfully 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.

particularly interesting are the terms...
776.08 Forcible felony.--"Forcible felony" means treason; murder; manslaughter; sexual battery; carjacking; home-invasion robbery; robbery; burglary; arson; kidnapping; aggravated assault; aggravated battery; aggravated stalking; aircraft piracy; unlawful throwing, placing, or discharging of a destructive device or bomb; and any other felony which involves the use or threat of physical force or violence against any individual.

In part, as I interpret it, This is Florida's way of putting an end to the once rampant carjackings too.

 

[Standing Wolf]

I've got cigarette butts in ash trays that are more valuable than the life of anyone who breaks into my house.

Frankly, I think the lives of armed criminals should be considered worthless by law.

 

[csmkersh]

Texas has cruddy open carry laws, unfortunately. I don't know why the GOP dominated government didn't change them.

It was lincoln's GOP that wrote those laws for Texas. Then the Ds went even further to the left and Bush's GOP is trying to catch up.

Closing time?

​

 

[Catherine]

I was told in my former state by sheriff deputies, detectives and higher ups (Chief Deputy right under the County Sheriff.) who were our super CLOSE friends that you had to be in FEAR of losing your life, rape, the bad guy/guys hurting your loved ones or in fear of x, y or z if you were a VICTIM of a home invasion and robbery.

They told me, MANY years ago, that if a bad guy tried to hurt you or yours in your own home, you shot him if alone or your spouse shot him, if the bad guy tried to FLEE while he was wounded to make sure that he did NOT CROSS the threshold. One said - drag his body back over. Another said - dead men tell no tales. Out here and all over the USA you hear different comments. I am NO lawyer and I don't trust what some people say IS or is NOT the LAW. I would sooner stop the crime if in FEAR of MY LIFE. Many innocent victims get the SHAFT big time in anti gun states with anti gun D.A.'s and they THINK that ONLY certain people should own guns. Of course, that includes LE and criminals get them because they don't OBEY those NO CCW or any other GUN LAW! So that leaves honest citizens powerless to a DEGREE you know! UGH.

Some farmer in my 'safe' area and others were robbed and had property damage over a time frame. The farmer, if memory serves me right, sat on the front porch or JUST INSIDE HIS HOUSE waiting to see if they would do this again and again. The farmer was an elderly man and FED UP since the bad guys did this over and over and to other people. The farmer shot the bad guy and then the 'LEGAL SYSTEM' tried to go after the farmer. I don't know if the bad guy was killed or only wounded. I was told this story by others including deputies. The farmer did not go to jail but he had problems even though he was the VICTIM and the perp was the CRIMINAL.

I had a RINO, crooked, anti ccw GOV in that former state. NO ccw back then even in your own vehicle! The laws were finally changed but they still stink from what I was told. The laws changed after I moved out west... many of us fought those dang laws and did our CIVIC DUTY. Many women were raped and killed because the lying RINO GOV was too busy kissing up to the higher ups in the FOP and the higher ups in the state highway patrol... not the regular policemen. Many other people were hurt and killed by criminals because they could NOT defend themselves and even 'CCW in their vehicles' which meant having their gun LOADED and close to them if they needed it quickly IN THEIR VEHICLE not just on their body!

Out here, I have heard the 3 S's. Shoot, shovel and shut up. I am NOT saying that I believe in that but I have HEARD it! I heard that in many places including Maine.

Catherine

 

[Catherine]

Quote:

I've got cigarette butts in ash trays that are more valuable than the life of anyone who breaks into my house.

Frankly, I think the lives of armed criminals should be considered worthless by law.

~~~~~

I don't smoke but I agree with this. I think that if a CRIMINAL breaks into my home whether he has a gun or HIS FISTS or a knife or anything else on HIM - breaking into my house or anyone's house is a CRIME. After he BREAKS IN... he could do anything not just rob and leave. He might want to hurt, rape, threaten, knife, shoot and leave you, your dog, your loved ones DEAD and/or threaten you if you speak up - he will come back and KILL YOU or them if he did not do KILL YOU and other WITNESSES from the gitgo!

The legal system should go after the criminals not the victims who defend themselves, loved ones including dogs and property. The legal system is screwed up though in many areas as we all know.

Catherine

 

[Zoogster]

The op said little about a home invasion or breaking in while they were there, he asked a question that could pertain to other situations. Perhaps coming home to find a burglary in progress with the crook loading up thier vehicle with stolen items. To intervene the home owner would have to insert themselves into the situation and are not in immediate danger nor is anyone else if nobody was home.

The property in the OP's post could also be in a vehicle, or elsewhere. In fact I recall a recent post someone made where a criminal simply took off with someone's gun right at the range.

Defending yourself or family from a threat especialy in the home is different than stopping a property crime in various situations. Since he specificly asked about property defense and not home invasions which are already covered by thousands of posts, it is probably more helpful to address the situations not already covered be self defense or in a way related to defense of property per the question of the poster.

 

[kentucky_Dave]

Since you put it that way...
use of deadly force by a civilian is justified in protecting human life in the face of imminent danger: undeniable and readily evident fear of death or mutilation.

Local interpretation may vary, but to be on the safe side...
They want you to sit and watch as you are robbed, as long as you are not threatened.
If the crook gets the goods, never endangers you and begins to flee, endgame, he wins and is protected by most state laws.

 

[peyton]

Runawaygun762
I want to say welcome to the forum!!
You will be able to find out about all kinds of information here.
Lastly about your name, how often have you had to deal with a runaway?? The M-60 had that bad habit, does the M-240?

 

[M1911]

They told me, MANY years ago, that if a bad guy tried to hurt you or yours in your own home, you shot him if alone or your spouse shot him, if the bad guy tried to FLEE while he was wounded to make sure that he did NOT CROSS the threshold. One said - drag his body back over. Another said - dead men tell no tales.

Dead men may not tell tales, but the forensic evidence and the three witness that you did not see sure as heck will!

This is some REALLY bad advice. Never, EVER tamper with evidence. That is a crime in and of itself. Besides, do you think the police are not going to see the blood smeared on the floor where you dragged the body? They will immediately know that you tampered with evidence and thus conclude that you knew you did something wrong. Congratulations! You just turned what may well have been a legal defensive shooting into a crime.

Your intent is to stop the attack. Your intent is NOT to kill the perp, although the use of deadly force may result in his death. (Note, however, that in the US roughly 85% percent of people shot with handguns survive.)

If the perp stops attacking and is no longer a threat, stop shooting. If you fire a dozen shots and all but the last one were justified, you may well end up being convicted of murder.

Furthermore, suppose that you are involved in such a defensive shooting incident and the prosecutor then finds out that you posted on the internet (or repeated to your buddies) such wisdom as "dead men tell no tales", "shoot, shovel, and shut up", or "kill 'em all and let God sort them out", etc.? How do you think that will play out in court?

Finally, police officers, while generally well meaning, are typically not the best source for advice about the laws of self defense. Your better bet would be a criminal defense attorney in your state. Or take LFI-1 from Massad Ayoob -- he has been an expert witness in many such cases.

 

[Catherine]

Hellooooo~~~

Hello... duh.

I know that you are not supposed to tamper with evidence and I PERSONALLY would NOT do that stupid thing IF and WHEN it ever came to a self defense shooting. By the way, have you written to this to the men on THIS board where this has been written along with other boards too?

I know that police do NOT always know the law and what they say on the side... is on the 'SIDE'.

I am saying what I have heard and what others have said to me. I have seen this on many boards too. If I have to worry about what I have heard and read on a board... written on what I have heard and read... well golly... I along with a million other people would have to just not write at all.

Did I say that I did this? NO. Did I say that I agree with this? NO. Did I say that I would do this? NO. I said what I HEARD and READ on boards and heard on the 'side'.

The comment on God is not my comment. That would come under a political or war thread - Kill them all and let God sort them out.

QUOTE:

Your intent is to stop the attack. Your intent is NOT to kill the perp, although the use of deadly force may result in his death. (Note, however, that in the US roughly 85% percent of people shot with handguns survive.)

~~~~~

I know that is true too. STOP an attack. I have read Mas too.

Thanks for your comments and advice.

Catherine

 

[Catherine]

PS:

I said and wrote this too:

QUOTE:

I am NO lawyer and I don't trust what some people say IS or is NOT the LAW. I would sooner stop the crime if in FEAR of MY LIFE.

~~~~~

Have a good day.

Catherine

 

[M1911]

I know that you are not supposed to tamper with evidence and I PERSONALLY would NOT do that stupid thing IF and WHEN it ever came to a self defense shooting. By the way, have you written to this to the men on THIS board where this has been written along with other boards too?

Yes I have and I continue to do so. I was responding to what you wrote, not your gender. Any implication otherwise is incorrect and, frankly, offensive.

When you post that a police officer told you to drag the body inside, there are readers who may take that as sound advice. If you are going to post that type of thing, you should indicate in the same post exactly why it is such a bad idea.

 

[Bailey Guns]

Minor point about Colorado law. Use of deadly force to protect property is lawful in Colorado, but only if such use of force falls under the "Make my day" law.

Any occupant of a dwelling is justified in using any degree of force, including deadly force, against someone who:
1) has made an unlawful or illegal entry into the dwelling.
2) when the occupant reasonably believes the intruder will commit, is committing or has committed a crime against person or property in addition to the unlawful entry.
3) when the occupant has a reasonable belief that the intruder might use any degree of force, no matter how slight, against any occupant of the dwelling.

This law also gives civil/criminal immunity to homeowners/occupants when their use of deadly force falls within those guidelines.

Unfortunately, the law has occasionally been wildly misinterpreted by some. In one case, a defendant was charged with killing another man. The other man (with a few others involved) had been in the defendants house, argued over something trivial, beat the defendant, threatened to return and kill the defendant, left the house, got in his car and was driving down the street. The defendant retrieved a gun and shot the other man as he was driving down the street.

The defendant's attorney argued "make my day" and a jury bought it. Unbelievable!

 

[Bartholomew Roberts]

Here again, though, Austin, Houston and Dallas don't always operate within state law and convictions have been sought.

Note that this latest case where the shooter was indicted after shooting through his window was in Kaufman County, Texas (pop. 93,241). Certainly not small-town Texas; but a long ways from Dallas County in size (pop. 2.3 million).

Anytime you pull the trigger, you are relying on the grand jury (and possibly the petit jury) to see things the way you saw them. Personally, I just don't own any property that is worth that risk.

 

[M1911]

Anytime you pull the trigger, you are relying on the grand jury (and possibly the petit jury) to see things the way you saw them. Personally, I just don't own any property that is worth that risk.

+1

 

[springmom]

Hello... duh.

I know that you are not supposed to tamper with evidence and I PERSONALLY would NOT do that stupid thing IF and WHEN it ever came to a self defense shooting. By the way, have you written to this to the men on THIS board where this has been written along with other boards too?

He has, I have, and a whole lot of other people have. You're not being treated in a sexist manner. This is far and away the most progressive and woman-friendly gun board on the 'net (not counting Women and Guns, but that's kind of a separate category ) Don't look for insults here, you'll not find them.

Springmom

 

[RobTzu]

As M1911 stated, paying legal fees for a murder charge, no matter how dubious is expensive. The time to do the cost/benefit analysis is now. It is not worth it for a watch, car, or any other material thing. The prospect of going to jail, even a slim one and the thousands upon thousands of dollars in legal fees outweighs shooting a thug. Focus on being a good witness, write down clothes, hieght etc. Save lethal force for when people are in danger not things. If you a thug runs off with someone you may wish you shot the S.O.B. But, if you are in jail awaiting trial because you shot someone over your neighbor's car you WILL regret that.

 

[Catherine]

Thanks Spring Mom!

Sincerely,

Catherine

 

[MechAg94]

For someone to have broken into my house and not get shot, either I wasn't there or they immediately put up their hands and laid out on the floor while I called the cops. Anything else and I make no promises.

IMO, if someone breaks into my house, it is an implied threat.


Now, simply trespassing on land and such are different issues. IMO, it is the trespassing issue that originated the nighttime thing in the law. Texas was a bit more rural when that law was put in.

 

[NC Dave]

I can only speak for myself, but while I would not hesitate to use deadly force to protect me and my family's lives from an imminent, deadly threat, there is absolutely no property in my home that is worth my taking a human life.

It is just stuff.

 

[brerrabbit]

If I shoot someone for stealing my stuff, it wasn't me that made the judgement call that my stuff was worth a life.

That being said, I live in a rural area that is strife with little wannabe gangsters. The odds of me doing jail time for ventilating one of them crackheads in the act of theft will likely not land me in jail. I may end up spending a bit on my lawyer bills, but that is why I have a firm on retainer.

In the end, IMHO it is a public service.

Theiving and burglary should be occupations that carry a lot of personal risk.

Edit to add:

I will not just arbitrarily shoot someone over my property. but they are not leaving my land with it or escaping after they have been caught out if I can possibly help it. They will be given every chance to surrender.

 

[NC Dave]

I will not just arbitrarily shoot someone over my property. but they are not leaving my land with it or escaping after they have been caught out if I can possibly help it. They will be given every chance to surrender.

Your mileage may vary, but in many states, including North Carolina, all this is going to result in is a murder charge and conviction for you and all of your assets going to the perps family in the civil suit.

 

[kentucky_Dave]

Then the North Carolina laws NEED to be changed.
A criminal occupation is NOT a valid occupation, and there should be NO reward for the family if the idiot is killed performing his "Job".

These idiots need to work for what they want, do without or face legally justified homeowners that will end their careers for trying to steal it.

How is that so hard for the rest of the population to understand?
My assumption is that they have never been stolen from.