Legally protecting your property

[NickBallard]

What's a legal way to protect your property? As you know, force can only be used in immediate self-defense, but not to protect property. So what do you do if someone's robbing your house and you're required to retreat into a different room because of a law? Is there no legal way to protect your property. No one has any right or business breaking into someone's home and stealing. If they're doing it in front of you and the law requires you to leave that room (in your own house), that just encourages them. Some may say let the police take care of it. Usually when someone's burglarized or robbed, the police only fill out reports, but they almost never catch the person. If you look at any state statistics of dollar amount of property stolen and returned to owner, hardly any is returned to owner. The use of force in defending property even goes for the use of non-lethal weapons, such as pepper spray (although a few rare states say that you can use pepper spray to protect property), which doesn't leave any permanent damage. I read from http://www.useofforce.us/ that there's the usual ability, opportunity, and jeapordy (since they can't prove intent, but can say the person was following established, external standards of jeopardy behavior), but that there's also the "preclusion" factor that's never talked about, but always is a factor in criminal and civil liabilities when self-defense is used. Preclusion means that all other means that wouldn't have put the victim in danger were exhausted before using force. It said on this website that if someone says to you, "Give me your money or I'll hurt you", that means you have to give them your money so that you can exhaust all means. It said that often in that situation if you punch the robber, you'll be charged legally (because life and limb is more important than property). So imagine if you have a kid and a bully always steals really important belongings from him. Then one day your kid learns karate and then uses it twart the robbery from the bully. Then the bully's parents sue you because even though their worthless kid was not hurt, but because the law said they could sue you. I am not married nor have kids, but that wouldn't seem ethically right. So how can you legally protect your property? One time a teenager stole a bike in my neighborhood and one of the neighbors saw it happen, then chased the teenager through a forest and a ditch until he caught the teenager and held him to the ground until the police arrived. The police didn't do anything to this neighbor but arrested the teenager.

 

[bouis]

Rules governing the use of force to protect property are many and varied.

Until you're exactly sure how it works in your jurisdiction, it's a good idea to avoid using force if at all possible, and to not be the one to threaten deadly force first. There's a rather famous case where a homeowner threatened a gang who were stripping parts off his car in his own driveway -- he went back inside, got his gun, told them stop or I'll shoot -- one tried to hit him with a tire iron, he shot the thug, and he got convicted of manslaughter, because the court reasoned that he was the first to threaten deadly force.

 

[TallPine]

In Montana, you may use force (but not deadly force) to defend/protect property.

Brandishing a firearm is not considered deadly force, but so called "warning shots" are.

Once the perpetrator threatens any force at all, you may use deadly force as it has then become a forcible felony.

 

[TarpleyG]

Move to Texas...problem solved.

Greg

 

[Nortonics]

Here in Minnesota (and many other States) we have what's called the Castle Doctrine, meaning if you and your family can't feel safe in your own home, then really you can't feel safe anywhere in this World. As such, up to deadly force can be utilized against an intruder, without the need to retreat first.

Some sticky areas to be concerned with on such a law, and there certainly are tons of examples where you'd never want to take actions this far. But regardless, if you hear one of your basement windows shatter at 2:00 AM and you know someones entered the house, you can choose to go eradicate them at will because of the Castle Doctrine.

 

[DunedinDragon]

As bouis pointed out, each state is different in this regard. As time goes on the "no retreat" law seems to be making headway in a lot of states.

Under the Florida law you were never required to retreat from a burglar in your house, only if you were attacked in a public area. However, even under "no retreat" rules it's not about protecting property, it's about protecting yourself or someone else from imminent harm. It's important to understand the difference.

There may be some exceptions in some states, but generally speaking you can't use deadly force to protect property. However, a burglar coming into your house has committed a forcible felony and, under Florida's law, it is assumed from the fact they are committing a forcible felony that your life could be in imminent danger and you're allowed to use deadly force. Robbery is another example in which the person is committing a forcible felony and you are justified in using deadly force. Again, it's not about protecting your property, but the way in which the person is trying to get your property that assumes your life may be in imminent danger.

The bottom line is that deadly force is generally reserved for imminent life and limb threats, not property protection.

 

[HankB]

So what do you do if someone's robbing your house . . .

Laws and the philosophy of the local constabulary/district attorney vary tremendously by jurisdiction.

IANAL, but generally speaking, my understanding is that unless there is some very unusual situation, when someone breaks into an occupied home, it is reasonable to conclude that he is a real and immediate threat to the personal safety and well-being of the homeowner and his family, and is not just a threat to their property. In most cases - at least in civilized parts of the country - the use of deadly force by the homeowner is recognized as prudent, reasonable, and legitimate in these circumstances.

Certainly the homeowner who successfully employs lethal force in these circumstances should make no statement to police before consulting with an attorney beyond "I was in fear for my life." (The late home invader will not be able to contradict anything the homeowner says, but the homeowner should still shut up until after he consults with an attorney.)

 

[NickBallard]

Let's say you're not on your property, but maybe at a picnic with some people. Someone runs up and steals a purse from someone. Obviously you wouldn't take out a gun an shoot the thief. But what if you were to chase the person down, tackle him, then pull the purse out of his hands and say, "I'll be returning this to its owner." Are the police going to get you into trouble for using force to defend property instead of self-defense? I know you would get in trouble in most states for using pepper spray, which is less lethal than tackling and grabbing.

 

[Car Knocker]

Nick, you need to refer to the laws of the state you live in. Advice you get here may or may not be applicable in your state.

 

[ArmedBear]

Ditto Car Knocker.

Some states require you to retreat, even when already trapped, in your own home. Other state laws state that someone who breaks and enters your home while you are present can be stopped with deadly force, immediately, without further action required by either party. Note that this is not the same as "protecting property" at all. It's about what is required to justify the use of deadly force for self defense, and it varies from state to state.

Note that you cannot make general assumptions based on the state, either. California, though not gun-friendly and certainly not CCW-friendly, has laws that state that when an intruder breaks and enters, he can automatically be assumed to be a threat to life and limb and treated accordingly. Some gun-friendly states, however, have had extremely restrictive self-defense laws that put all the risks on the homeowner, not the burglar. This is changing, but do not assume anything!

 

[cbsbyte]

As others have said check you local and state laws on this topic. Never ask for legal advice on the internet, since most of it will be personal opinion rather than fact. It might be best if you contact an attorney if you have additional questions.

 

[NickBallard]

Good rules of thumb across states

One of the reason's I was wondering is if you travel across the country. I know it's going to differ from state to state, but are there any common patterns? Let's say you're on vacation and someone decides to pick pocket you? Chances are if you just get away and contact the police, you won't get your wallet back. Obviously you're not going to kill them, but may not mind chasing after them to get it back. Just checking because it's good to be prepared.

 

[ArmedBear]

A good rule of thumb?

I don't think that even in most clearly pro-victim self-defense laws (where you can legally shoot if a reasonable person would "feel threatened", anytime, anywhere) chasing someone down with a gun, when they are running away and not shooting at you, would be anything less than attempted 2nd degree murder.

"That guy has my wallet" is not the same as "feeling threatened." And in most states, the threshold for using deadly force without fear of prosecution is a good deal higher than "feeling threatened."

So I'm betting you'd be charged criminally.

 

[NickBallard]

ArmedBear, I don't think you understood me right. I'm asking if "you don't pull out a gun" when you're chasing them.

One time a teenager stole a bike in my last neighborhood and one of the neighbors saw it happen, then chased the teenager through a forest and a ditch until he caught the teenager and held him to the ground until the police arrived. The police didn't do anything to this neighbor but arrested the teenager.

How would most of the time that be treated across the country? What that neighbor did was the use of force.

 

[Leanwolf]

NICK BALLARD - "...One time a teenager stole a bike in my last neighborhood and one of the neighbors saw it happen, then chased the teenager through a forest and a ditch until he caught the teenager and held him to the ground until the police arrived. The police didn't do anything to this neighbor but arrested the teenager."

That incident would be a case of "Citizen's Arrest." I haven't any idea in what State you live in, or where the misdemeanor bicycle stealing event took place ... but in most States, a citizen can make a Citizen's Arrest, when he/she sees a misdemeanor being committed in his/her presence. That means the citizen can use all reasonable force necessary to subdue and take that suspect into custody. This would also apply to a felony being committed in the citizen's presence.

On a practical level, a citizen had better be very damned careful about making a Citizen's Arrest. Lots of stuff can go very wrong.

1. Personal danger. Citizen is not trained in police work. Citizen does not have police equipment. (No partner, no radio, no baton or equivalent, no handcuffs, no pepper spray, no firearm .....) The bad guy might be a whole lot tougher and meaner than the citizen... and not want to hang around for the police to get there.

2. An escalation of force by Citizen might be more than reasonable in the eyes of the authorities, therefore the Citizen might be arrested for felony assault.

3. Liablilty. Citizen just might get his ass sued off for "unreasonable and unnecessary use of force." Juries are funny groups of people, sometimes.

I suggest if you're travelling to other States, just be alert and don't let a criminal take advantage of you.

FWIW. L.W.

 

[El Tejon]

Security from crime comes not from your gun, but from your wallet.

Move to an area where the criminals are not.

 

[Cosmoline]

If a man has broken into your house with you in it, it's not an unreasonable assumption to presume he's armed and prepared to kill you. Many states in fact write this into their codes, allow home owners a presumptive right to kill intruders at least during the night. Check your code. Very few US states require home owners to run away when someone breaks into their occupied home, unless they can do so WITH COMPLETE SAFETY TO THEMSELVES AND THEIR FAMILY. That means if a man has busted in your front door and your family is upstairs, you're not typically required to leap out the damn window. Go down, go down armed, and go down prepared to kill in a second unless the goblin surrenders.

Security from crime comes not from your gun, but from your wallet.

Move to an area where the criminals are not.

Which is where, exactly? The Moon, I suppose. Security systems are MOOT once the window is smashed in and the goblin is inside. Security sytems are in fact primarily for guarding your house when you're not in it.

Now if you're talking about the theft of CHATTLE PROPERTY, from bikes to cars, when you're not on or in them, THE RULES ARE VERY VERY DIFFERENT. You cannot gun down a man for stealing your bike. But if you watch it happen you can get the police in gear and they can deal with it. If you have a bike or car worth thousands, just keep insurance on it. Or you can have a car like mine that smells like a wet dog threw up a bunch of rotten halibut inside and nobody would steal under any circumstances ;-)

 

[Fosbery]

In Britain, if someone breaks into your home, unless they are runnig away, you can pretty much do as you like. The reasoning is that if you find somebody in your home, you're gonna be very scared and may kill someone who did not actually pose a threat to you. However, you would have to show remorse if this was a case.

 

[ArmedBear]

One time a teenager stole a bike in my last neighborhood and one of the neighbors saw it happen, then chased the teenager through a forest and a ditch until he caught the teenager and held him to the ground until the police arrived. The police didn't do anything to this neighbor but arrested the teenager.

Catch-22.

If you chase down someone for stealing a bike, you'd BETTER have a gun pointed at him.

Maybe he'll be a scared kid. Or maybe he'll be a gangbanger and wheel around and shoot you dead. The latter happened here in San Diego at the beach last year. A guy took someone's bike. The bike's owner chased the thief, and demanded his bike back. Now he's dead. The shooter is in jail, but that won't bring the innocent bicycle owner back to life.

That's something to consider.

But if you DO chase someone down with a gun, you will probably go to jail.

It's not ideal. We'd have less theft if thievery were a more fatal enterprise than it is today. On the other hand, this could give murderers too many alibis, if you think about it.

So use your jugdment. I have chased a thief myself, with a tire iron. Caught him, too. Luckily for me, it was just a dumb kid, and I got payment for the damage he'd done, when I caught up with him. I was lucky, though.

(Bear in mind these stories are about situations in public, not on private property. On your own private property, you often have much more freedom to use deadly force, and I wouldn't confront a thief unarmed.)

 

[gunslinger15]

I love my' great state of Texas' laws when it comes to this stuff.If Theyr'e in/on your property you can use deadly force man is that a comforting feeling when you here a window break at 3am.

 

[Limeyfellow]

It's not ideal. We'd have less theft if thievery were a more fatal enterprise than it is today. On the other hand, this could give murderers too many alibis, if you think about it.

Its a tricky situration. Over use of force can lead to what happened in South Africa where even though people can legally have flamethrowers in the car and shoot to defend them, the criminals who were just carjacking before are now shooting the victim first most times to keep themselves safe. Things tend to escalate when poverty is involved and people become jealous.

 

[NickBallard]

So let me make sure I understand this right...

So let's say someone pick pockets you. You see them and they're slowly walking away from you (not running) and it's on public property. So if I'm understanding you right, you can't grab your very own wallet from the thief because they're on public property and to grab it back would be force and so the law protects them from having your property taken back and you'll probably never see your wallet again because most of the time the police can't or won't get stolen property back to their owners? I can understand if you hurt the person, but if you chase someone down and grab it back from them, that's force and since it's on public property and it's the defense of property instead of self you're in trouble?

 

[Art Eatman]

Nick, your beginning post was where you went wrong. You should never have gone to that website. You're sorta like the Trig student who showed the first day of class, never showed up again until the Final Exam, and made a 97. The Prof queried him as to how he'd done so well; the student responded, "Well, I'd have made a hundred, but I came to class that first day and got confused."

I think you went to the wrong class...

Anyhow, there's no "one size fits all" on this whole deal. In Georgia, if I come into your house with bad intent, you don't even have to sweat a civil charge if you salivate my happy bod, much less criminal charges.

Most states get into "reasonable and prudent" efforts to protect or regain property--and it doesn't matter if you're at home or out in public.

Just as I have, folks here can give you a generalized answer that's applicable to the state within which they live and for which they may have specific knowledge. None of us know the laws of all states. And once you get started on these nitpicks, answers become even more difficult, as well as more complex with "what if" stuff.

If you don't want to tell us in which state you reside, Hey! Go find a lawyer, or go ask a prosecuting attorney.

Art

 

[NickBallard]

Why won't the law help people?

My permanent residence is Utah. I travel to California, Oregon, and Washington. The thing I don't understand is why the law can't just look at situations reasonably. If someone grabs something from you, takes off, then you chase after them, grab them, and then take your wallet or whatever back from them and they get no more than a scratch on their arm, I don't understand why you'd get sued for thousands of dollars because it was the use of force? Why is the legal system encouraging the criminals? I can understand if you chase after the person and punch him, but to only use what force is necessary to get a wallet back without injuring the person, such as grabbing your wallet back from them? The police don't usually get your property back when you report it, similar to howthey often are powerless against murderers until there's been enough murders. After Ted Bundy was moving from state to state, they were powerless to stop him until too much damage happened. They were powerless for many years in stopping the Green River Killer. After Jeffrey Dahmer the cannibal drugged that teenage boy and the teenager ran from the apartment screaming and a neighbor called the police, the Milwakee Police returned the teenage boy to Dahmer because the teenager was too drugged out to even communicate and Dahmer sounded reasonable enough. Then after they left, Dahmer killed the boy and did sick things (if neighbors call saying that there's a victim, why did the police leave the claimed victim with the claimed assailant if the victim was too drugged to even communicate?). The Supreme Court ruled that LE cannot be held responsible for protecting individuals. The moral of the story, the police often can't help you after the crime has been committed, especially after a wallet is stollen. Don't get me wrong, most LEO want to help and are nice human beings, I'm just wondering if there's anything legal you can do in the moment if someone takes your wallet and starts to run in addition to calling the police? One time I had an aunt who went to New York City and was robbed and the security officer in the park said they don't care about it because they had better things to do and she also reported it to the police who took down a report, but didn't do anything about it.

 

[Car Knocker]

Why is the legal system encouraging the criminals?

Because we have evolved into a kinder, gentler society whereby the majority don't want to assume the responsibility for harming others by incarcerating them or exacting any other form of punishment. Add to that the reluctance to increase taxes to build more correctional institutions and to fund an adequate police presence. And speaking of correctional institutions, are they really a deterrence to crime when the prison has more ammenities for the prisoners than the prisoners had on the outside?

All in all, it is a multi-faceted problem that no one in a position of authority really wants to address and the citizens aren't really interested enough to make it an issue.