Legally protecting your property

[Lupinus]

depends very heavily on the state

some you can shoot the bg just for stepping foot in your house, and some you pretty much need to have run screaming like a little girl to the best hding spot in your house and wait till he finds you before shooting.

In general though, using deadly force simply to protect your property is a no no.

 

[NickBallard]

The legal system and individual rights

Quote:
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.

So why doesn't the legal system give its citizens more authority to protect their own property as long as they use reasonable force? Is the government supposed to make sure we’re civilized and protect us, or is it supposed to arbitrarily allow criminals to do what they have no moral business doing because of loopholes? If the Supreme Court says that law enforcement is not responsible to protect individuals, but society as a whole, doesn't it sound like a conflict in the law if the individuals can't legally protect themselves, including their own property? Some people say leave it to the LE when it deals with individual matters, but is that consistent with other parts of the law (constitutional)?

 

[TallPine]

So why doesn't the legal system give its citizens more authority to protect their own property as long as they use reasonable force?

Because then some people might get the idea that we can just take care of our own problems and don't really need police and government and taxes...

Government in all forms is just a system of control, and you can't control citizens who are more or less sufficient. If there is more crime (arguably because citizens may not defend their property/lives) then obviously the govt needs to enact more laws and raise your taxes to "solve" the problem. However, the govt never solves any problem because it's own existence and source of growth relies on there being more problems that need solving.

The legal system serves to protect the lawmakers and their minions, not the general public.

Am I cynical or what ...?

 

[NickBallard]

Why the law should delegate more authority to citizens

Quote:
So why doesn't the legal system give its citizens more authority to protect their own property as long as they use reasonable force?

Because then some people might get the idea that we can just take care of our own problems and don't really need police and government and taxes...

Then why doesn't the Supreme Court rule that LE can be sued for not protecting individuals, not just society as a whole?

Then why don't they change the constitution so that you're guilty until proven innocent in a criminal court of law so that we can be more efficient at detaining dangerously violent criminals from the streets, along with other changes in the law and forensic sciences so the majority of murderers can be found and convicted? I read from www.crimelibrary.com, a collection from the experts on all sorts of violent murderers, sick rapists, and serial killers (an interesting site), that not only are the majority of all rapists and assailants not convicted, but the majority of the time when a murder is found, a murderer is never found and convicted for it. Look at how difficult of a time that LE had in catching Ted Bundy, Jeffrey Dahmer, and the Green River Killer. From what I've read from experts in violent crime is that it's usually the impulsiveness of serial killers/violent assailants that lead to them being caught, not brilliant Sherlock Holme minds found in LE (even though there are some exceptions).

Citizens have a right to life, liberty, and property, and so the government should allow citizens to protect these things if they use reasonable force in situations that a reasonable and prudent person would fear the same thing in the same circumstances (including property). Another reason I'm not so sure about "leave everything to LE" is that by the time the police arrive, it's usually too late.

 

[NickBallard]

How would you interpret this law?

Although I go other places sometimes for a few months, my permanent residence is in Utah. I found Utah law on "Force in defense of property", which looks a lot different as far as law goes for "Force in defense of habitation". Art Eatman was right that I should have ignored that American Force website, but I still don't know how to interpret this law or what prosecuting attorneys could do in twisting things around. What is your interpretation of this:

76-2-406. Force in defense of property.
A person is justified in using force, other than deadly force, against another when and to the extent that he reasonably believes that force is necessary to prevent or terminate criminal interference with real property or personal property:
(1) Lawfully in his possession; or
(2) Lawfully in the possession of a member of his immediate family; or
(3) Belonging to a person whose property he has a legal duty to protect.

Enacted by Chapter 196, 1973 General Session
Download Code Section Zipped WP 6/7/8 76_02026.ZIP 1,801 Bytes

If someone grabs your wallet, could you chase them down and pepper spray them to get your wallet back if you keep on shouting at them to give it back as you run after them (would that be terminating criminal interference if they're running with your wallet, since they are still committing a crime since they have your wallet with SSN, etc)?

 

[Gewehr98]

That's a dangerous mindset right there, in and of itself...

some you can shoot the bg just for stepping foot in your house,

And a serious over-simplification of what the new Castle Laws are designed to do.

I highly recommend reading the moderator thread titled "Bloodlust" in the Strategies and Tactics forum here. It may save one some unneeded post-homicidal-shooting anguish someday.

http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=205304

 

[NickBallard]

Quote:
some you can shoot the bg just for stepping foot in your house,


And a serious over-simplification of what the new Castle Laws are designed to do.

I don't think Lupinus was advocating shooting people with guns. He said that states differ on their law as far as that goes, and that it's a no no anywhere in defending property. But yes, I agree, human life is important.

 

[Baba Louie]

some you can shoot the bg just for stepping foot in your house

I don't think Lupinus was advocating shooting people with guns.

If not a gun, then shoot them a... smile? If you can seriously articulate that said entrant was in fact a bad guy, who came into your castle with no invitation, with nefarious intent, who has the ability to DO YOU HARM, then defending against them with anything less than lethal force could very well put you in jeopardy ("I fear'd for my life").

Home invasions, seemingly becoming more common as of late (actually an old established cave-dwelling habit of hit and run from days gone by) MIGHT be about property theft (drugs and/or money... maybe guns/cars/electronic equip) or it MIGHT be about your daughter/wife/sister/mom. Or you. Who's going to sit still and ask polite germaine questions?

On the other hand, coming home and finding your back door ripped open, your TV set gone (or even your gun safe blown open) and seeing the south end of a north-bound ner-do-well beating tracks thru your back yard whilst lugging heavy arcania formerly housed in your domecile... two different things totally.

In the latter case, it seems that the law, as written, favors criminal behavior (I was told years ago that for each B&E the Cops actually bust, some 254 other actions occur... isn't that nice?). "10 guilty men walk free so that not even 1 innocent man charged, yada yada yada"

Harden your home to some degree, prepare yourself to defend life and limb, don't worry about the small stuff (and realize if it's not life and limb, it's probably all small stuff) and go about enjoying your life.

Really.

You might also want to do everything in your power to stay OUT OF THE LEGAL SYSTEM in any way, shape or form, unless you decide to make it your chosen field or profession, in which case, should you choose to ride wi' the law, you'll oft-times find yourself ham-strung by legal arcania thrown into your path by well meaning (?) black-robed justices and legislaters who sometimes don't have a clue as to what's really going on in the day to day life of the people on the street. Nor do they care. As long as they check the power of the Police (which might be a good thing in a way, if one thinks about it for a moment) or make it as difficult as possible for Joe Citizen to take matters into his own hands. They all seem to want you to have some form of lawyer to interact on your behalf... if you think about "Law" for more than a minute or two, you know why.

It'll only make you bitter and cynical. Kinda like the dry comedy we call politics.

 

[vector40]

As the guy who actually created the site linked in the original post (useofforce.us), I just want to say that what you've been getting in your replies is basically the only right answer: study the statutes and case law in your state to come up with what you want. If you have a "scenario" type question, you may be able to find a parallel case, or you may be able to get an answer from a DA, lawyer, or your attorney general's office, but the truth is that if it hasn't happened yet (and maybe even if it has) predicting what the outcome of a given situation will be is basically prophecy.

The only sure answer is to avoid the mess altogether. That's why, on that site, when I generalized 50 state laws into a single summary, I boiled it down to the *safest* choice -- meaning the one that, after ensuring your physical safety and that of your loved ones, involves the most minimal use of force possible. That will always be the bet that gets you home happiest. Nothing else is worth it.