Follow Thieves and Draw Weapon?

[Kleanbore]

Florida has long had "pockets of sanity". Before there was a CHL law there, the police in Orlando gave classes to women on the use of a handgun. This was in the late 1960s. There was reasonably favorable publicity in the newspaper, and the incident rate of rape declined in notable fashion.

Not only that, but after the CHL law was passed with a lot of attendant publicity (much of it negative), but before it became law, there was a notable decline in the rate of violent crimes against citizens in Florida in some cities.

Even though the predictions by the anti gun people all over the country that the Florida law would result in mayhem and a return to the "wild west" proved wrong, the same argument have been raised elsewhere, and they continue to be proven wrong everywhere else.

Missouri laws (concealed carry and use of force) are modeled very closely after the Florida laws. For those traveling to MO, here are some of the salient differences to be aware of:

• The common law duty to retreat has not been eliminated by statute in MO except within an occupied domicile or atomobile;
• There is no specific requirement in the code for a citizen to be acting under under direction of a police officer to be allowed to use force to overcome resistance to a citizen's arrest in Missouri;
• Open carry is permitted in some areas by CCW permittees or by others who are hunting lawfully;
• Though it is unwritten, there seems to be a lot less emphasis on criminal prosecution for "printing."

Lawful incidents of self defense are reported with some frequency, but most involve burglaries. The only really unfortunate incident I know of that has made the news involved a man who carried legally but who followed thieves, drew his weapon, and fired at them as they fled. He was arrested and prosecuted. There are no follow-up news reports on most incidents.

Regarding "pockets of sanity", while many citizens and the media in the most populated areas still complain about the veto override that gave us the right to carry some years ago, several alderpersons in the state's largest city, which ranks third in nation in the rate of violent crime, have urged their constituents to obtain permits and carry firearms for protection. I call that sanity.

 

[JDBoardman]

Here in Texas we have recently had a case that made the national news. A gentleman observed two goblins robbing his neighbor's garage and attempted to accost them with a shotgun. At the time, he had also called 911, and was communicating with them when he ordered the robbersd to stop. When they didn't and crossed onto his property, with 911 on the phone an an officer on the way, he shot and killed both BGs. They turned out to be illegals with a long criminal history. The Harris County Grand Jury returned a "no bill" despite the DA's fauned outrage. Texas law allows the use of deadly force in several situations, such as to halt a felony in progress, and to prevent theft in the nighttime in addition to the usual immediate harm to life or limb, and the general population has lost its tolerance for many crimes against property and persons. We feel that Bad Guys are just that, and we are fed up with our "rights" being subordinated to theirs.

 

[Dr_B]

Personally, I am not going to draw my gun and follow someone I have observed committing a property crime. It's property. Call the police and give them any info you have on the robbers.

 

[Zoogster]

JDBoardman said:

Here in Texas we have recently had a case that made the national news.

Texas is a bad example for someone trying to learn the laws of legal deadly force, and that case is an example of one that would likely lead to life in prison in many states for double murder. Texas examples as a result make poor examples.
That is because Texas is the only state in the nation where someone can use deadly force purely to defend property under certain circumstances when there is no possible threat or even risk of injury to anyone from the criminal.

The individual was no billed so the importance of what legal defense would have been used and which would have prevailed cannot be properly scrutinized either, they simply decided not to prosecute.
However the criminals were unknown, illegals, don't even have an identity in the US, and were fleeing with loot. Texas law provides a means to use deadly force to stop someone from fleeing if it is reasonable to believe they may not be caught and the property retrieved.
This essentially makes Texas the only state in the country where someone can shoot someone unarmed and running away in the back and still be justified if circumstances allow.

Texas also allows use of deadly for for criminal mischief at night, and while that incident was not at night it is another example of a very low threshold for deadly force in Texas that is unique to Texas.
Criminal mischief can be as simple as vandalism. Someone doing graffiti on private property at night could legally be shot in Texas.
Maybe even someone toilet papering a house, throwing eggs, or other juvenile pranks at night.
It should be noted though that people may still go to trial or lose when justified, but Texas has some of the lowest legal justifications for deadly force.


So examples from Texas are not a good way to understand the laws or requirements for the other 49 states, or for what would be typical consequences for certain actions.

 

[Kleanbore]

Posted by JDBoardman: A gentleman observed two goblins robbing his neighbor's garage and attempted to accost them with a shotgun. .... The Harris County Grand Jury returned a "no bill" despite the DA's fauned outrage. Texas law allows the use of deadly force in several situations, such as ....

The Joe Horn case is often cited by anti gunners as an example of legalized murder, and by some others as an example of how texas law is properly permissive regarding the use of deadly force.

The key point that is usually missed when this case is brought up is that Horn claimed self defense, and his account of the incident and his basis for having a reasonable belief that his life was endangered, were supported by the testimony of a law enforcement officer who witnessed the shooting.

Posted by Zoogster: examples from Texas are not a good way to understand the laws or requirements for the other 49 states, or for what would be typical consequences for certain actions.

That is true, and even among the other forty nine states, there are differences in the laws that could make the all the difference in the outcome of a use of force incident.

Those differences are often very significant in at least the following areas:

• Whether there is a duty to retreat, or whether that old common law requirement has been eliminated by statute or by a court ruling;
• under what circumstances a citizen's arrest (or the North Carolina equivalent) may be effected, and whether, and/or to what extent, force may be used in the process;
• Whether the law or case law contains a "castle doctrine", and if so, the details (for example, what structures are covered, whether the unlawful entry must be made with force, whether entry must have been completed or simply attempted);
• whether deadly force may be employed to prevent a felony, and the kinds of felonies covered;
• details involving the justification of the use of deadly force to defend a third party;
• the whole area of "brandishing", or unlawful exhibition of a weapon; and
• what a citizen may do, and what a citizen may not do, in response to trespass.

One really should know the laws and their meaning wherever one happens to be, but in my humble opinion, those (1) who choose to draw a weapon only when it is immediately necessary to protect themselves or someone they know from death or serious bodily harm, and (2) who do not look for ways to try to justify the use of a firearm in other circumstances, are not very likely to run afoul of these differences as they travel from one state to another.

There are, of course, differences in the weapons laws that one must be aware of.