Defense of Property

[Ohio Gun Guy]

Curiosity question….

Many states have a version of the Castle doctrine; however this typically covers dwellings and threats to life. The theme is; the intruder by their very presence is a threat.....

What is someone to do about theft of property, strictly outside the four walls of their home, let’s say a pole barn, vehicles outside, things in the back yard, farm property, detached garage, storage shed, etc. Obviously it’s not moral or legal to shoot when there is no threat to life (Yours or others) however in most states you are legally within your rights to confront and attempt to stop the theft of your property.

If a property owner were to go armed to confront a trespasser / intruder is he using lethal force by "Brandishing”?

Would the owner necessarily have to go un-armed to confront an intruder to be within the law?

I’m not looking for a debate on what is the smartest thing to do, how unwise it is to leave the house, the pros and cons of waiting for the police, or how big a cannon to take.......

Rather, what is the consensus on what a property owner is "legally allowed" to do to secure their property that is kept outside of the home.......?

 

[Airpark]

I guess it all depends on what your state's partilcular version of Castle Law says.

About three weeks ago, about 40 miles down the road. a store owner came out of his convenience store and shot and killed one of the guys fleeing in a pickup truck. He was not charged. Logic was that a felony (armed robbery) had take place and he killed the escaping felon.

In other places the outcome would have been different.

Recently in Texas (on national TV) story about guy shooting and killing two illegal who were robbing his neighbor's house....not charged.

Another Texas case where a man shot and killed a repo truck driver. Repo man was leaving with the guy's vehicle in tow on public street...not charged.

SO; what does the Ohio law say? As you questioned...what are the circumstances? What harm has been done? Deadly force used in the committment of the act? How badly were you threatened? Were you in actual danger of losing your life? Self defense?

OR: was it just one of today's youth's responding to peer pressure and doing something irrational or maybe under the influence of something.

All of these and probably lots of other factors come into play any time you take or contemplate taking the life of another human being.

No matter how you feel about the scumbag doing it.


Just my $.02

Bill

 

[freakshow10mm]

Legally= probably not much.
On principle= have no problem killing someone for trying to take my property.

 

[azyogi]

Ohh, for the days you could load rock salt in a 12 gauge.

 

[Frank Ettin]

First, it depends on exactly where you are and exactly what the law is.

Second, it's not just a matter of what a particular statute says. The right answer may depend on other statutes and case law.

Third, there may well be no clear answer, but rather a lot of "gray area."

So if you really need/want an answer that you can rely upon, you'll need ot consult a qualified local lawyer and get a formal opinion.

 

[Ohio Gun Guy]

I actually do not have that big of a concearn / no pressing problem......It just seems like a legal loop hole to me.

Basically, In my opinion, investigating a burgulary un-armed is risking your life / to a greater degree than un-armed. However, the act of being armed might be used against you. In some places, it definately would be used against you. Therefore, the "Safest" legal thing to do is, to do nothing.....but that would create an atmosphere where the criminals could become very brazen.

 

[Frank Ettin]

...It just seems like a legal loop hole to me.

Basically, In my opinion, investigating a burgulary un-armed is risking your life / to a greater degree than un-armed. However, the act of being armed might be used against you....

But if that's really the issue, you're now treading on an area that you had said you didn't want to discuss. You had previously written, "I’m not looking for a debate on what is the smartest thing to do, how unwise it is to leave the house, the pros and cons of waiting for the police,..." But that is the very issue you're raising by now framing the question as you just have.

The legal uncertainty now becomes related to doing something that may be tactically unsound -- going out to investigate rather than calling the police and waiting and observing from a place of safety. The legal ramifications of going out to confront a trespasser or possible burglar, and the ways in which such an enterprise may be lawfully carried out, are very dependent on the exact situation and the exact law (including case law) in your jurisdiction.

Or is the question as narrow as the one you ended your opening post with, "...what is the consensus on what a property owner is "legally allowed" to do to secure their property that is kept outside of the home....."? The simple answer to that question may be something like: with fences, locks, premises lighting, motion detectors, alarms, and trained dogs. But once we start to make the leap to discussion of managing a trip outside to have a look, and therefore a possible confrontation with a trespasser or thief, the legal issues become a good deal more murky.

 

[ChaoSS]

It depends entirely on where you are, and how the laws in your area are interpreted.

I believe that in at least one state (I won't say which one, if I'm wrong I don't want to give anyone the wrong idea about this) the castle doctrine is extended beyond your 4 walls, in other words, if someone is letting the air out of your tires on your driveway, you have the legal (although not necessarily moral) right to shoot them dead.

Then there's CA. We don't even have a castle doctrine. It's difficult to impossible to get your hands on a concealed weapons permit, and for the most part, you can't openly carry a gun. However, if I need to step out to investigate a noise outside, provided that I don't leave my property, I am completely within my rights to carry a gun, concealed or otherwise. I wouldn't suggest brandishing it, of course, but I can certainly tuck it in my pocket or waist band and not get in trouble for concealed carry without a permit.

 

[JohnKSa]

...in other words, if someone is letting the air out of your tires on your driveway, you have the legal (although not necessarily moral) right to shoot them dead.

If you're talking about TX, that is incorrect. It's always possible that you might not be indicted, TX Grand Juries tend to side with the homeowner, but as you have stated the scenario, the vehicle owner would be guilty of murder.

Even in TX, where property can sometimes be defended/recovered by deadly force there are a number of legal requirements that must be satisfied before deadly force is justified. It is NEVER as simple as just being able to shoot someone because they damaged/are damaging/took/are taking/have your stuff.

 

[Shadow 7D]

That texas case was not pretty and he killed the two not stealing from his neighbor (illegal) but rather when they were criminally trespassing on his property (in the commission of a crime, his neighbors) when one turned and he was in fear for his life.

I may be wrong, but I believe that is a synopsis

 

[yachky]

Q. If a property owner were to go armed to confront a trespasser / intruder is he using lethal force by "Brandishing”?

A. ABSOLUTELY NOT! IF YOU BRANDISH TO INTIMIDATE A CRIMINAL YOU'VE SUCCESSFULLY USED YOUR CCW WITHOUT HAVING TO DISCHARGE YOUR FIREARM. HOWEVER, BECAREFUL BRANDISHING IS PURPOSELY REVEALING YOUR CONCEALED FIREARM TO INTIMIDATE, POINTING A FIREARM AT SOMEONE IS A FELONY - ASSULT WITH A DEADLY WEAPON AND SHOULD ONLY BE DONE IF THEY ARE A REAL THREAT.

Q. Would the owner necessarily have to go un-armed to confront an intruder to be within the law?

A. THAT WOULD BE DUMB.

Q. how unwise it is to leave the house, the pros and cons of waiting for the police, or how big a cannon to take.......

A. CALL THE POLICE FIRST FOR SURE, BUT THEN HOP TO IT. I WOULDN'T GO WITH A .22!!! 9MM OR BIGGER, OR JUST SHOW UP WITH A SHOTGUN AND WATCH THE RUNNING COMMENCE. IF I WERE DEALING WITH THIS AND DIDN'T LIVE IN/NEAR THE CITY I WOULD DISCHARGE THE SHOTGUN BUT AT THE GROUND, UNLESS I WERE CONFRONTED THEN NOT AT THE GROUND.

Q. what is the consensus on what a property owner is "legally allowed" to do to secure their property that is kept outside of the home.......?

A. WHERE I LIVE YOU HAVE THE RIGHT TO DEFEND YOURSELF WHERE YOU HAVE THE RIGHT TO LIVE/BE ON YOUR PROPERTY. THAT INCLUDES YOUR HOME, YOUR GARAGE/BARN, AND YOUR CAR.

 

[divemedic]

If a property owner were to go armed to confront a trespasser / intruder is he using lethal force by "Brandishing”?

While you may be committing a crime (depending on your State's law) you are not using deadly force. Deadly force is defined as that amount of force which can be expected to cause death or serious bodily injury. Simply pointing a weapon at someone does not meet that criteria, but it may be considered to be aggravated assault.

In Florida, pointing a handgun at someone is considered to be non-lethal force. Ohio? I am not sure.

 

[TexasRifleman]

Lots of different laws on this so you have to be very careful giving generalities. So different from state to state it's not even funny.

I believe that in at least one state (I won't say which one, if I'm wrong I don't want to give anyone the wrong idea about this) the castle doctrine is extended beyond your 4 walls, in other words, if someone is letting the air out of your tires on your driveway, you have the legal (although not necessarily moral) right to shoot them dead.

I assume you mean Texas since it's well known we have a law for using deadly force in the defense of property.

First thing, this has nothing to do with "castle doctrines". The Castle doctrine is something entirely different.

The deadly force laws in Texas as regarding property are, as far as I know, unique to this state so they are not a good guide to the law anywhere else.

From a pure legal sense letting the air out of tires MIGHT qualify as criminal mischief.

The often misunderstood law you're talking about is one that allows for the use of deadly force to stop the commission of "criminal mischief" if it's night time. Has to be night time.

Criminal Mischief is:

28.03. CRIMINAL MISCHIEF. (a) A person commits an
offense if, without the effective consent of the owner:
(1) he intentionally or knowingly damages or destroys
the tangible property of the owner;
(2) he intentionally or knowingly tampers with the
tangible property of the owner and causes pecuniary loss or
substantial inconvenience to the owner or a third person; or
(3) he intentionally or knowingly makes markings,
including inscriptions, slogans, drawings, or paintings, on the
tangible property of the owner.

If you shoot someone for letting the air out of your tires you will then need to convince a jury that it would have caused "substantial inconvenience".

One of the things to remember about Texas law is that though it may seem pretty open to property owners and people taking the law into their own hands, there is a very big risk....

Texas law requires anyone who kills another to go before a Grand Jury and face potential indictment for homicide. Prosecutors are given no choice or leeway in this.

So, you shoot someone for letting the air out of your tires and they die, you WILL have to convince a Grand Jury that you were justified.

That might not be very easy to do.

 

[ChaoSS]

Thank you for the clarification, guys, as I said, I don't really know, but I had heard it explained rather differently. You have reinforced my point rather well though, that it varies greatly depending on where you are. I doubt there is anywhere (that doesn't ban guns or the carrying thereof outright) that bans you from carrying a gun, concealed or otherwise, when confronting someone on your property.

 

[Sam1911]

I WOULD DISCHARGE THE SHOTGUN BUT AT THE GROUND

Wheeee.... here we go again!

-Sam

 

[Cosmoline]

Shooting someone for trying to take property is a very different matter than going armed to check out a situation on your property. In my view, when I carry a rifle to check out a potential threat, I am not doing it to gun down someone who's stealing my purple viking potatoes. I'm going because anyone who's trespassing and stealing may also be armed and I'd better be ready. Plus it could be a bear after purple vikings around here. I don't view it as "brandishing."

 

[wheelgunslinger]

Well, if you do go armed to investigate a bump in the night, the situation can quickly escalate from a burglary to a threat against your person when the burglar/thief decides he really wants your purple viking potatoes, Amish hand forged 19th century adze, or is trying to steal your firewood.
There are all manner of stupids out there.

Sudden escalation of force is generally the homeowner's friend, unless you live in a place where the DA is a raging control freak and doesn't want citizens defending themselves. But, sudden escalation of force is a whole other bag o worms that may be blamed on you for bringing a firearm in the first place.

 

[Ohio Gun Guy]

Seems there is a grey area......

 

[TexasRifleman]

Seems there is a grey area.....

There's always a grey area. It's called "Ladies and Gentlemen of the Jury"

 

[beatcop]

This is what I'm used to:

A person is justified in using reasonable physical force upon another person when and to the extent that he reasonably believes such to be necessary to prevent an attempt by such other person to commit larceny or criminal mischief involving property, or when and to the extent he reasonably believes such to be necessary to regain property which he reasonably believes to have been acquired by larceny within a reasonable time prior to the use of such force.

Example: Someone rolls your lawnmower down the street. You may compell the thief to leave the mower by tugging, pushing, etc. If the thief responds with a physical attack, the scenario turns into "defense of person" instead of "defense of property" and the rules of self defense come into play.

My usual advice is: don't shoot anyone over property. Although some will disagree from the comfort of their armchair. When you see the affects a shooting has in "real life" to the families involved, to your name, bank account, health, etc you may decide it just isn't worth killing/shooting someone or being killed over some nonsense.

PS-Do not take legal advice from on the internet! Most folks are well intentioned, but have no training....even the ones that do, get it wrong sometimes!

 

[Ohio Gun Guy]

Beatcop......

Expanding on your comments. (Hope you dont mind)

If the owner of the lawn mower went to stop it from being stolen, and took a firearm.........

 

[JohnKSa]

Ohio Gun Guy,

It's going to come down to the specific laws in YOUR area.

You may be required to retreat from any confrontation unless you are unable to. You may be required to retreat from a confrontation that you initiated regardless of the circumstances that led you to initiate the confrontation.

There is no hard and fast answer about defense of property by deadly force that works across the board regardless of your location unless you're willing to accept the answer that you should never use deadly force for defense of property. That is about the only answer that won't get you into legal trouble regardless of your location.

 

[divemedic]

It all boils down to what your state considers to be reasonable force. Merely pointing a gun at someone is not deadly force, per se.

Let's look at it this way: I see someone taking my lawnmower (to use the previous example) I approach him and ask him why he is stealing my property. He still keeps going. Is it reasonable in my state to physically prevent him from taking it by grabbing the lawnmower myself and pulling on it? If the thief resists by also pulling, is it reasonable for me to produce a weapon? If the thief then attacks me, is it reasonable to shoot him?

In the above example, it would be easy to conclude that I shot him to defend my lawnmower, but that is not the case. I employed force in three different steps.

1: I employed force in the form of pulling on the property, to protect that property. NOT DEADLY FORCE.

2: When confronted with force, I escalated by producing a firearm. NOT DEADLY FORCE, but possibly not legal in your state, YMMV.

3: In response to the attack, responded with deadly force.

So actually, I employed deadly force to protect my person. The thief was given 4 opportunities to stop, and continued combat.