Lethal force to defend property?

[Frank Ettin]

I think of this as "where America went wrong", where the lawyers and courts have given criminals more rights than the property owners...

Nope, you can't blame America or today's lawyers or courts. The foundation of our use of force law predates the birth of our Republic by hundreds of years. Its roots are deep in the Common Law of England, upon which our legal system is based.

We need to understand that our society, again going back well before the birth of our Republic, frowns on one human intentionally killing or hurting another. However, our laws, going back to the Common Law of England, recognize that there are situations in which an intentional act of extreme violence against another person can be justified -- for example when absolutely necessary to defend an innocent (whether oneself or another) against an otherwise unavoidable threat of being killed or gravely injured by another person's intention act.

 

[wdyasq]

As I understand it, Texas has a lot of latitude in the use of force to defend one's life or property.

Somewhere in chapter 9....

"An individual is permitted to use force to protect his land or movable property if the individual believes that another person is trespassing or unlawfully interfering with his property and that force is the only action that will successfully stop the unlawful action. Keep in mind that this force is not deadly force. Deadly force is only justified when the individual reasonably believes that deadly force is immediately necessary to stop the other individual's unlawful actions, which include aggravated robbery, arson, burglary, criminal mischief during the night or theft at night. Deadly force may also be used to prevent the person who has committed the criminal act from fleeing with the property. The individual who uses deadly force must reasonably believe, however, that the land or property cannot be protected or recovered by any other means except by the use of deadly force."

Clear as mud ...

Ron

 

[MedWheeler]

Basically, they can steal my $40,000 truck out of the driveway, and there is nothing I can do about it.

Not true, in most states (not sure about Kansas.) You can lawfully confront someone attempting to steal your truck and, in most states, even put yourself between the vehicle and the would-be thief to stop the act. If he then escalates force, you can generally counter with escalation-of-force yourself as appropriate to protect yourself. If he then demonstrates that he is willing to maim or kill you to get that vehicle (or to avoid detention/arrest), then all bets are off, and you are now being robbed (carjacked.)
Now, whether or not you consider attempting to stop a car thief/burglar is strategically a good idea will depend on you and the circumstances of the incident.

 

[9mmepiphany]

Clear as mud ...

I thought it was pretty clearly written...where is the confusion?

 

[scottgun]

Nope, you can't blame America or today's lawyers or courts. The foundation of our use of force law predates the birth of our Republic by hundreds of years. Its roots are deep in the Common Law of England, upon which our legal system is based.

I can agree with this. It's just the difference between Western frontier justice versus English common law. Its odd that we revolted against English oppression, yet we adopted their basis of law. In present times, England and many progressive US States have don't even allow a homeowner the ability to defend themselves from invasion in their own home. We read stories of homeowners in states without the Castle Doctine who are charged with a crime for defending their homes from invaders, where the DA expects them to retreat from their household rather than inflict violence on a criminal. Its a slippery slope.

It seems this goes back even futher than hundreds of year, but thousands of years. The idea of the New Testament of forgiving the sinner versus the Old Testament idea of an eye for an eye.

Interesting topic, I just fall on the side of making things more difficult for criminals, but realize that we have to stay within the bounds of the law too.

 

[Frank Ettin]

...Its odd that we revolted against English oppression, yet we adopted their basis of law...

Allow a brief digression please. It's actually not odd at all.

The Colonists, in large measure, were Englishmen. At the time of the Revolution, we had a fully functional system of laws and of courts based on the Common Law. All manner of things, titles to property, commercial contracts, business transactions, etc., followed Common Law principles. Many of the Founding Fathers were lawyers who practiced in a legal system based on Common law.

At the time of the Revolution, our law was the Common Law of England. It would have been odd, and terribly disruptive, had we not continued thus.

Okay, hijack over. Back to our regularly scheduled thread.

 

[Girodin]

However, when banks move money in armored cars, they have armed guards with handguns and or longguns. What are their instructions to protect the banks property? Can they shoot an unarmed person who just tries to take the bags of money?

I admittedly didn't read all the responses or even the full OP. And I imagine the answer has likely already been touched upon. They have no more right to use lethal force to protect property than you do. However, someone who commits an armed robbery or the like is presenting a threat to the person in possession of the property that typically justifies lethal force. Lethal force is justified to protect the person possessing the property not the property.

...Its odd that we revolted against English oppression, yet we adopted their basis of law...

Not in Louisiana we didn't!

As to those bemoaning the laws general preference for preserving life, the law views human life as being more valuable and important than mere property. That is something that I would tend to agree with. It is one thing to take a life to protect an innocent life. It is another to protect a hunk of metal that is rapidly depreciating and is insured against loss and that is replaceable. I'm not defending the thief's actions in anyway. However as a Christian I believe that God's children have more inherent value (even if they are scum bags) than my car, flat screen, etc.

 

[One_Jackal]

An Asian family owns a local convenience store. The were robbed. The youngest daughter held with a gun to her head. I asked the owner did he need a firearm? He responded by showing me a nice HK. I asked why he didn't shoot the robbers? He said there was less than $2500 in the store. Even if he was innocent, he would spend over $2500 and he might have put one of his kids in danger. All I have to say is he is a better man than I am.

@Girodin You are correct, scumbags are Gods children. They are more valuable than property. The scumbag deserves an opportunity to give his soul to the lord and become productive member of Gods family.

 

[SimplyChad]

Texas property protection laws

SUBCHAPTER D. PROTECTION OF PROPERTY]

Sec. 9.41. PROTECTION OF ONE'S OWN PROPERTY. (a) A person in lawful possession of land or tangible, movable property is justified in using force against another when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to prevent or terminate the other's trespass on the land or unlawful interference with the property.(b) A person unlawfully dispossessed of land or tangible, movable property by another is justified in using force against the other when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to reenter the land or recover the property if the actor uses the force immediately or in fresh pursuit after the dispossession and1) the actor reasonably believes the other had no claim of right when he dispossessed the actor; or(2) the other accomplished the dispossession by using force, threat, or fraud against the actor.
Acts 1973, 63rd Leg., p. 883, ch. 399, Sec. 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1974. Amended by Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 900, Sec. 1.01, eff. Sept. 1, 1994.

Sec. 9.42. DEADLY FORCE TO PROTECT PROPERTY. A person is justified in using deadly force against another to protect land or tangible, movable property1) if he would be justified in using force against the other under Section 9.41; and(2) when and to the degree he reasonably believes the deadly force is immediately necessaryA) to prevent the other's imminent commission of arson, burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, theft during the nighttime, or criminal mischief during the nighttime; or(B) to prevent the other who is fleeing immediately after committing burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, or theft during the nighttime from escaping with the property; and(3) he reasonably believes thatA) the land or property cannot be protected or recovered by any other means; or(B) the use of force other than deadly force to protect or recover the land or property would expose the actor or another to a substantial risk of death or serious bodily injury.
Acts 1973, 63rd Leg., p. 883, ch. 399, Sec. 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1974. Amended by Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 900, Sec. 1.01, eff. Sept. 1, 1994.

Sec. 9.43. PROTECTION OF THIRD PERSON'S PROPERTY. A person is justified in using force or deadly force against another to protect land or tangible, movable property of a third person if, under the circumstances as he reasonably believes them to be, the actor would be justified under Section 9.41 or 9.42 in using force or deadly force to protect his own land or property and1) the actor reasonably believes the unlawful interference constitutes attempted or consummated theft of or criminal mischief to the tangible, movable property; or(2) the actor reasonably believes thatA) the third person has requested his protection of the land or property;(B) he has a legal duty to protect the third person's land or property; or(C) the third person whose land or property he uses force or deadly force to protect is the actor's spouse, parent, or child, resides with the actor, or is under the actor's care.
Acts 1973, 63rd Leg., p. 883, ch. 399, Sec. 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1974. Amended by Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 900, Sec. 1.01, eff. Sept. 1, 1994.

Sec. 9.44. USE OF DEVICE TO PROTECT PROPERTY. The justification afforded by Sections 9.41 and 9.43 applies to the use of a device to protect land or tangible, movable property if1) the device is not designed to cause, or known by the actor to create a substantial risk of causing, death or serious bodily injury; and(2) use of the device is reasonable under all the circumstances as the actor reasonably believes them to be when he installs the device.
Acts 1973, 63rd Leg., p. 883, ch. 399, Sec. 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1974. Amended by Acts 1975, 64th Leg., p. 913, ch. 342, Sec. 6, eff. Sept. 1, 1975. Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 900, Sec. 1.01, eff. Sept. 1, 1994.

 

[Sav .250]

It seems to me if you follow existing rules/laws set be your state, then what ever action you might take won`t get you into trouble. When you have to justify your actions, that`s a different matter.
Stealing and self defense are miles apart when it comes to "your" defending yourself. J s/n.

 

[Sam1911]

where the lawyers and courts have given criminals more rights than the property owners.

Not so. The criminal has no more rights than you do and doesn't have the RIGHT to harm you or steal your stuff. What he has is the willingness to become a criminal, to break the law, to overstep his rights in violation of yours in order to get what he wants.

You, presumably, do not have that same willingness to do wrong/evil, and HIS faults do not elevate your rights to another plane wherein you are allowed to pronounce judgment and execute him for the wrongs you believe he's committed.

By living under the rule of law you agree that you will pursue justice. Justice is sought through law, and law has procedures for determining guilt, punishing the guilty, and making restitution of civil damages. Justice has no room for retributive killings by an individual member of society.

Under no circumstances under the law are YOU, one man, given the right to judge, convict, and execute someone for harming you or even attempting to kill you. Under certain circumstances you may use the tool of (potentially) lethal force to prevent your own death, the death of another, or a small collection of other very grievous felonies. Using a tool to prevent a harm. Not making a personal decision that someone must die and executing them.

The law recognizes that the use of lethal force -- and the possible and accepted death which MIGHT result from that use -- is only allowable when certain irremediable harms are about to take place (like death and rape). All other harms are considered to be of less weight than the taking of a life, including that of the criminal actor.

So if you have a disagreement with the law, your disagreement is quite literally that property (which can be replaced) is more valuable than a human life (which cannot). Even society as a whole -- acting through the courts -- in our nation and most other developed nations, do not take on the power to kill a person because he stole or destroyed property. The few jurisdictions which do allow for retributive executions only proscribe that penalty in cases of extreme violence against persons.

 

[Frank Ettin]

Texas property protection laws...

Not particularly relevant --

[1] Texas use of force laws are unique.

[2] Not everyone is in Texas.

[3] And even though Texas laws are broad, there are still various conditions the need to be satisfied, and the you will need to demonstrate were satisfied, to justify the use of lethal force.

 

[ColdDayInHell]

In MA, a person has to be in danger in order to be in a defensive shoot.

Section 8A. In the prosecution of a person who is an occupant of a dwelling charged with killing or injuring one who was unlawfully in said dwelling, it shall be a defense that the occupant was in his dwelling at the time of the offense and that he acted in the reasonable belief that the person unlawfully in said dwelling was about to inflict great bodily injury or death upon said occupant or upon another person lawfully in said dwelling, and that said occupant used reasonable means to defend himself or such other person lawfully in said dwelling. There shall be no duty on said occupant to retreat from such person unlawfully in said dwelling.

Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 278, Section 8A

 

[MedWheeler]

9mmepiphany writes:

If the delivery guy is at the door delivering the pizza and a thief is stealing other pizzas from his vehicle, you can't use deadly force to stop the theft

No, but you can sure confront the thief and attempt to stop the theft using reasonable force. As has been pointed out, criminals do not have any more rights than does anyone else, contrary to popular hype and belief. If you do use reasonable force to stop the theft, and the crook escalates the confrontation to a level that makes you fear for your safety, then, once again, deadly force may well be indicated, as it has now (in Florida, at least) become a robbery.

 

[Texan Scott]

A point about historical precedent for shooting/ hanging horse theives in Texas...

Come out to Texas, especially west Texas, sometime... consider what could happen to you (especially in summer) if you were the only person for 30 miles and had no transportation, no extra water, no means of calling for help. Texas didn't allow shooting/ hanging of horse theives because horses are sacred, but because stealing a man's horse (which likely had his water and all his gear strapped to it) could very well be slow, hideously unpleasant murder.

So, we're back to the distinction between property crimes and crimes against persons. The distinction between 'violent' burglary and 'non-violent' burglary may well be simply that burglary of an occupied dwelling carries the assumed risk of violence. The burglar is in no danger of being shot if I'm not there, but of course, I'm in no danger from him either.

 

[Deltaboy1984]

As I understand it, Texas has a lot of latitude in the use of force to defend one's life or property.

Somewhere in chapter 9....

"An individual is permitted to use force to protect his land or movable property if the individual believes that another person is trespassing or unlawfully interfering with his property and that force is the only action that will successfully stop the unlawful action. Keep in mind that this force is not deadly force. Deadly force is only justified when the individual reasonably believes that deadly force is immediately necessary to stop the other individual's unlawful actions, which include aggravated robbery, arson, burglary, criminal mischief during the night or theft at night. Deadly force may also be used to prevent the person who has committed the criminal act from fleeing with the property. The individual who uses deadly force must reasonably believe, however, that the land or property cannot be protected or recovered by any other means except by the use of deadly force."

Clear as mud ...

Ron

The Joe Horn Case cleared the water a bit in TX. He used deadly force to stop 2 BG in the daytime.

I feel for folks in other parts of the country where the LAW says a BG can take your Auto and you can do nothing to stop them.

 

[Frank Ettin]

The Joe Horn Case cleared the water a bit in TX. He used deadly force to stop 2 BG in the daytime.

I feel for folks in other parts of the country where the LAW says a BG can take your Auto and you can do nothing to stop them.

The Joe Horn case was more complicated than that. Texas use of force law is more complicated than that as well.

 

[Kleanbore]

The Joe Horn Case cleared the water a bit in TX. He used deadly force to stop 2 BG in the daytime.

I do not think that to be the case at all.

First, a charging decision by a Grand Jury does not establish precedent.

Second, it has been widely reported that Horn's attorney intended to base his case on self defense rather than protection of property.

Third, Horn's case was helped by the testimony of a plain clothes detective who witnessed the shooting.

Fourth, the forensic evidence reportedly indicated some uncertainty.

Fifth, there have been reports in legal articles to the effect that Horn could not substantiate that he had been requested to protect his neighbor's property, and that is a prerequisite condition for justification under the law.

No, the Joe Horn case does not tell us anything about the defense of property.

 

[gym]

When all is said an done, the very bottom of all of the rules and regs I have ever looked at, always have a clause, that says something like, If "YOU" feel your life was in jepordy, you have the right to use lethel force. It more or less supecedes all the other stuff. they have to prove your state of mind was not, that you were in fear of losing your life.
When I took my NYC test "the oral" that was the answer I gave, when asked if I knew when I could use my weapon. The officer looked at the officer he was auditing, and said , "you see, Mr.Bill understands the use of deadlly force. That was it, got my permit in the mail 3 days later.

 

[Kleanbore]

Posted by gym: When all is said an done, the very bottom of all of the rules and regs I have ever looked at, always have a clause, that says something like, If "YOU" feel your life was in jepordy, you have the right to use lethel force. It more or less supecedes all the other stuff. they have to prove your state of mind was not, that you were in fear of losing your life.

Close, but no cigar.

While the laws do vary somewhat among jurisdictions, one's personal threshold for trepidation generally has little to do with it; it is an objective standard.

The issue is one of reasonable fear, and the case will be decided on the basis of what a reasonable person, knowing what the actor knew at the time, would have believed necessary.

 

[Frank Ettin]

...all of the rules and regs I have ever looked at, always have a clause, that says something like, If "YOU" feel your life was in jepordy,..

Nope, sorry. Your subjective fear is not the test. The test is the objective "reasonable person" test.

ETA: It looks like Kleanbore beat me to it.

 

[9mmepiphany]

they have to prove your state of mind was not, that you were in fear of losing your life.

I don't care if it has already been posted, it bears repeating...It isn't about your subjective/personal level of fear.

They don't have to prove your state of mind...especially if you are claiming that you used deadly force in self-defense...you have to prove that your acted as a reasonable person would have in the same circumstances

 

[JagerRanger]

In the past, and even now in some places like CA, I believe that it was/is commonly difficult to get a concealed carry permit unless you were in a business that dealt with cash, diamonds, or precious metals and had a lot of valuables. Clearly it was/is justifiable not because of a person, but because of property.

If memory serves, there was [is] an obscure law in CA that provides that you don't need any carry permit to transport valuables, such a diamonds, gold, etc.

When I was young and earned some extra money as an armored guard, we could carry as many firearms as we wished without any permit.

And, no, you don't protect the property, you protect yourself as a guard if someone approaches you with bad intentions. I had no problems drawing the gun and carrying it in one hand and the bag in another. Nobody came to the same elevator, and I told people to keep the distance.

Cops never gave us any hard time either, just the opposite. If one saw me carrying through a mall, even with a gun in my hand, or going to the bank, he volunteered his assistance.

Those were the days.

I'm quite sure things have changed and different states posses different rules.

 

[JagerRanger]

The test is the objective "reasonable person" test.

Sir, how does that take into account, for example, the eggshell skull doctrine?

 

[Sam1911]

The "reasonable person" test is best explained as what a reasonable person would have done in the same situation if they were privy to the same information and understanding you had at the time.

So, if you have some reason why you are especially vulnerable to attack -- maybe you have terrible osteoporosis or hemophilia -- you will not be judged based on the reactions that a very healthy, robust person would have made in the same situation.

Just for a hypothetical: If you have a pacemaker, but it is known to be fragile, subject to failure and causing infarction if damaged, and someone is punching you or striking you in the chest and will not stop -- a healthy person may not quite be at the threshold to use force to stop that (otherwise mild) attack, but you may be so. And the jury will be instructed to evaluate your actions based on your special known circumstances.