So you stumble across a thief...

Status
Not open for further replies.
have you ever used a firearm to stop a property theft on private property? I have so I speak from experience.
If I had, I woldn't admit it, unless it happened in Texas in recent times or unless the statute of limitations had expired.

I was thanked by the guy with the five point badge.
...who was not the charging authority.

In reality though I saved the thief from a severe beating by another person he stole from the night before. A bat was about to take swing on him as he fought the owner of the car. The racking of the shotgun (already loaded, but the sound got all present to snap out of it) was all it took.
Sounds justifiable to me, based on the story.

Talk about the second part, and not the first.
 
Last edited:
Quote: from Charleo0192
"Well I live in a pretty good area, as far as police response times go. They never take more then 2 minutes and usually are there in a minute, at least with the few occassions I have dealt with them."

So, you must live next to a donut shop, eh...? lol That's pretty good response time... Well, that's a tough situation...Technically, I can't shoot him...for being a thief.. But he better not advance on me, or reach for anything on his person...If he's coming out of my vehicle or home, he may already have stolen a weapon. I would probably draw, and after calling 9-1-1, attempt to hold him. If he leaves, I'm going with him and attempt to stay with him until help arrives...I wouldn't expect such a quick response time, as we don't have a donut shop near-by...
 
Last edited:
This is why you stop the threat before it gets to that. You have more options than just running or shooting. You can use pepper spray, tazer, martial art skills, whatever you have that is not lethal.

This is very true. Also note that this is a personal decision you will make. When lethal force is authorized under the law you have no obligation under the law to use less than lethal forces. That is a personal thing. I have seen people not even blink an eye when CS was used on them, not the civilian watered down stuff either. Seen people tear tazer wires out. Even seen people fight after being shot at rooms length after being shot with buckshot (not in a civil setting like we are talking about here, but it has showed me what <less> lethal things can not do sometimes). When lethal force is authorized dont pussyfoot around about it. When its legal you are good. I would rather live with the life lost of a criminal than see any harm come to my family or have them live with watching me be hurt badly or be killed. I am not a betting man. I will not bet on a less lethal option being my first when I have better just as legal options I can use.

Its a personal choice. As long as you got a plan and stick to it, chances are you will be fine. I will not take a chance or make bets. Thats my plan. Wether you agree or not is moot. I know whatever I do will be legal. Thats all that matters....
 
In many states the person has to fear for their lives.

Any thief that would simply ignore you as you yelled stop, get off my lawn, etc. is probably crazy. If you have your gun drawn, grab a cell phone (if you have one) and call 911. If the thief makes a dash for you then you are being attacked and you can then defend yourself.
 
Kleanbore

Missouri Revised Sautes, Chapter 571 is not your states laws on the use of lethal force. It also makes no mention of tresspass. It only defines weapons offenses. You are basing what you would do on the wrong laws.

Find the use of lethal force and tresspass laws and get back to me.
 
Find the use of lethal force and tresspass laws and get back to me.
Actually, NO. The burden of proof is on the person SUGGESTING the course of action, not the person questioning it. You can't advocate a course of action on a public forum and accept no responsibility for the legalities of it.


IMPORTANT _ READ THE FOLLOWING:


From this post forward, anyone that wants to post in this thread needs to START THEIR POST with a factual list/recitation of the relevant state laws for their home state, or be discussing somebody elses' posting of the law. Any post that does not meet that standard will be deleted, and anyone that pushes the boundaries of that will be escorted to the forum door.

Got it?
 
OK

Use of force in defense of persons.
563.031. 1. A person may, subject to the provisions of subsection 2 of this section, use physical force upon another person when and to the extent he or she reasonably believes such force to be necessary to defend himself or herself or a third person from what he or she reasonably believes to be the use or imminent use of unlawful force by such other person, unless:

(1) The actor was the initial aggressor; except that in such case his or her use of force is nevertheless justifiable provided:

(a) He or she has withdrawn from the encounter and effectively communicated such withdrawal to such other person but the latter persists in continuing the incident by the use or threatened use of unlawful force; or

(b) He or she is a law enforcement officer and as such is an aggressor pursuant to section 563.046; or

(c) The aggressor is justified under some other provision of this chapter or other provision of law;

(2) Under the circumstances as the actor reasonably believes them to be, the person whom he or she seeks to protect would not be justified in using such protective force;

(3) The actor was attempting to commit, committing, or escaping after the commission of a forcible felony.

2. A person may not use deadly force upon another person under the circumstances specified in subsection 1 of this section unless:

(1) He or she reasonably believes that such deadly force is necessary to protect himself or herself or another against death, serious physical injury, or any forcible felony; or

(2) Such force is used against a person who unlawfully enters, remains after unlawfully entering, or attempts to unlawfully enter a dwelling, residence, or vehicle lawfully occupied by such person.

3. A person does not have a duty to retreat from a dwelling, residence, or vehicle where the person is not unlawfully entering or unlawfully remaining.

4. The justification afforded by this section extends to the use of physical restraint as protective force provided that the actor takes all reasonable measures to terminate the restraint as soon as it is reasonable to do so.

5. The defendant shall have the burden of injecting the issue of justification under this section.

Chapter 563 is what I was looking for
 
Super - thanks. I presume that this is Missouri law?

I'm confused, tho - this section of the statute does not appear to address the question posed by the OP:
He does not make any threats, he's not carrying a weapon that you can see, he just keeps walking or keeps looking for stuff - as if you didn't exist.
The scenario, as described, is trespass and/or burglary - not 'use of force in the defense of persons'.
 
I would not draw a firearm with the possible exception, depending on exact circumstances, that he was walking toward me, or a member of my family, and failed to yield to a "STOP" command. Again, it all depends on the exact circumstances, and one's ability to articulate the perceived threat to a jury.

Oregon law allows an individual to use physical force to defend one's property, but not deadly physical force, and I firmly believe that anyone who carries a firearm for personal defense should also carry a non-lethal means of defense. For me, that's pepper spray. Therefore, if he continued walking away with my stuff, I would season his mucous membranes.
 
Last edited:
Yes it is Missouri law and it is kinda vague. #3 mentions residence and dwelling. The question I would ask a lawyer is if residence means property since the dwelling itself is specificaly mentioned. All depends on what they consider residence..

Number 5 is clear and cut.

Better have a good lawyer saved in your phone who has answered all your questions. Thats what I would do in that state and follow what he told me exactly!!!!!
 
Missouri Revised Sautes, Chapter 571 is not your states laws on the use of lethal force. It also makes no mention of tresspass. It only defines weapons offenses. You are basing what you would do on the wrong laws.
What you asked for was the following:

I am going to have to ask for a link to the local codes where you live where it says you can not exhibit a weapon on your property. I aint saying it aint so. I just need to see where it says that YOU on YOUR property can not exhibit a weapon.

Chapter 563 is what I was looking for
...but it is not what you asked for, since the subject of unlawful exhibition of a weapon is covered in Section 563...

Yes it is Missouri law and it is kinda vague. #3 mentions residence and dwelling. The question I would ask a lawyer is if residence means property since the dwelling itself is specificaly mentioned. All depends on what they consider residence...
I guess you overlooked the definitions:

2) "Dwelling", any building, inhabitable structure, or conveyance of any kind, whether the building, inhabitable structure, or conveyance is temporary or permanent, mobile or immobile, which has a roof over it, including a tent, and is designed to be occupied by people lodging therein at night;

(7) "Residence", a dwelling in which a person resides either temporarily or permanently or is visiting as an invited guest;
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Yes, Texas law is clear on using deadly force to protect property, but that doesn't mean a Grand Jury won't indict anyway. If you stop a car stereo thief and it costs you $20,000 in legal fees to defend against it in court, did you really win?
I wish over the years I had taken the time to clip news paper articles or jotted down notes on TV stories about using firearms in crimes. Much of the detail escapes me from the shootings years ago.

There are two that come to mind that was about deadly force (killing the BG) over property without the shooter being in the least bit of danger.

One was when a home owner drove up to his house and saw several thieves running out of the house. The shooter shot, and as I recall killed at least one thief. The shooter used his "Deer rifle" that he always carried in his truck.

Another time in Houston a car owner shot and killed a guy trying to get in his car (to steal it?). The car owner shot from a second story window. The bullet went through the thief and broke the car side window.

Both shooters were no billed (good shooting).

I do like Texas law.:)

§ 9.42. DEADLY FORCE TO PROTECT PROPERTY. A person is
justified in using deadly force against another to protect land or
tangible, movable property:
(1) 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 necessary:
(A) 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 that:
(A) 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.
 
In NC the homeowner has to have a reasonable imminent fear of death or material physical harm before the homeowner can use lethal force beyond, simply removing the offender with minimal force

Assuming there is no other family member needing my immedate rescue, I'd leave and call 911. There is nothing I can't replace other than my family. That's what insurance is for.
This sums it up for me too. Retreat and 911, gun remains in the pocket. No threat present, so no gun drawn. Life goes on for all involved, maybe a few things missing. No biggie. We're fully insured And they go to jail.
 
Last edited:
So is it your response to the OP that you would simply shoot?
If you are asking me?
My response is what I said in post #8.

It depends on the situation.

Because of the layout of my place, outbuildings and such, I can come up with a dozen situations where I would not shoot immediately and a dozen scenarios where I would shoot pretty quick.

I will stay within the law but I will not take a chance of being hurt and it's very unlikely that I will allow a thief to leave with my property.

It just depends.
 
I live in Texas and the Texas law has been stated. I'm no vigilante. I don't want to deal with these low-lifes that steal. That being said, I would not allow them to leave my property. I would have my gun drawn (I have already gotten proof they are violating the law) and call 911. I would tell them cease what they're doing. If they run, I would fire. I have put great thought into this and I may see consequences, but that guy has a very low percentage of a chance of ever straightening up. What if he's packing the next time and a woman starts screaming and he shoots her. Indirectly, I would be responsible if he got away. Let your conscience be your guide, and mine says take the scum off the street if he won't go to jail. I don't want someone innocent to die because I didn't stop them when I had the chance. Flame away, but I've run it over and over in my mind and when put in that situation, he's a criminal and I was his prey. Where's my second chance if he actually got my stuff or hurt my family. He/she made the decision to endanger their life, not me.
 
in tennessee, if you walk in and theres someone in your home you can shoot them. tennessee or atleast east tennessee see's home invations as leathal threat
 
If they run, I would fire. I have put great thought into this and I may see consequences, but that guy has a very low percentage of a chance of ever straightening up. What if he's packing the next time and a woman starts screaming and he shoots her. Indirectly, I would be responsible if he got away. Let your conscience be your guide, and mine says take the scum off the street if he won't go to jail. I don't want someone innocent to die because I didn't stop them when I had the chance.
As a LEO , a hundred years ago, I saw this first hand. Many criminals just keep getting worse and worse.
I've even given a few a "break" and within days or weeks they are committing more crimes.

Long ago I decided that I was done giving "breaks". If the criminal deserves to be shot, and I am on legal ground, he is getting shot.
I do not want to hear something like that low life that I let go, broke into a house and attacked and killed a 14 year old baby sitter.



There are people so terrible out there that the average person can't believe what they will do.
Last week, about 20 miles West of here, a illegal alien murdered a 4 year old boy.
The filth demanded $15,000 from the family, for the return of the boy, but he had already killed the child.:fire:
 
If someone has entered my home I do believe it is considered a forcible felony and I have a right to stand my ground in the beautiful State of Florida. First though, I diall 911 and hit send, whether I have time to speak to them or they trace my call to the location depends on what is going on.
There are so many things that determine my actions. Is my wife and kids inside and this guy is walking back out the front door? If so, I can guarantee you he will not be going much further until I know exactly what has happened, take that as you will.
If he has my TV in his hands, I will not allow him to get much further either. How I act from my first verbal command depends on what he does next however I will not sit idly by and let someone violate me, my family or my property. Is it the right thing to do for everyone? Nope. You have to decide that for yourself and know your laws.
 
Focus on the OP issue people. It's much easier to build straw men or drag rotting herring through the thread than stick to the OP's scenario.

The thief in so many words, tells you that he's not scared of you, and simply ignores you and continues what he was doing. He does not make any threats, he's not carrying a weapon that you can see, he just keeps walking or keeps looking for stuff - as if you didn't exist.

If our theoretical burglar is some hardened criminal or some idiot banger wannabe high schooler full of bluff and bravado (they can be one in the same or completely different) you won't know. They don't wear signs telling you. The guy's outside your house (not inside or going inside or holding your kids as a shield or any of the other embellishments that make a lethal force response an easy decision) and blows you off and keeps doing what he was doing when you came upon him.

What's the response to this exact situation within the limits of your state law?
 
Last edited:
HSO,
This is an exerpt from John Gutmacher who is probably the #1 Attorney in Florida on gun rights and maybe in the top 5 in the country. Here's what he says about Florida law. Now the tricky part is that I do not think to date there has been case law on defending property on your land however Florida law states that burglary is a forcible felony and as such deadly force is justified and no warnings are necessary.
Chapter 776 of the Florida statutes specifies what you can or can’t do in lawful self defense. The Chapter is entitled “Justifiable Use of Force”. Self defense is generally a complete defense to crimes such as improper exhibition of a firearm or improper exhibition of a weapon; aggravated assault; aggravated battery; murder, homicide; manslaughter; and many other misdemeanors and felonies where you are defending yourself, your family, home, etc. Self defense may either be thru the use of “deadly force”, or the use of “non-deadly force”. The difference is often critical in what you can or can’t do. There are three sections of Chapter 776 which are really key to home defense. As a general rule, a person may use deadly force to defend their home from an assailant who is committing or trying to commit a “forcible felony”. A forcible felony generally includes the more serious crimes (burglary, aggravated assault, aggravated battery, sexual attacks, robbery, murder, homicide, etc.), or an attempt to commit them. The defenses are mostly contained in Florida Statutes 776.012; 776.013; and 776.032. Here’s how it works.

Florida Statute 776.013 states that a person defending their home or occupied vehicle from an "unlawful" forceful entry or attempted forceful entry by another may use deadly force to stop the invasion or attempted invasion of the property. In such instances they need not retreat before using deadly force, they need not warn the intruder of their intent to shoot, and there is an absolute presumption that the person attempting the entry was doing so with the intent to commit a violent act (i.e. "forcible felony"), and that the defender is presumed to be acting in reasonable fear of death or great bodily harm to himself or herself. In other words – no arrest or prosecution is technically "legal" if someone without a right of entry or ownership is trying to break in, and you shoot them. In theory – the police and prosecution cannot try to show your fear was unreasonable, or that the intent of the assailant was not to do you or a family member severe injury. Of course, there are some limitations to this statute. The statute states that in order to take advantage of its protections you can’t be engaged in unlawful activity when the incident occurs, the defender must be aware that someone has broken into the house or occupied vehicle, or is attempting to do so, and the person entering the home or occupied vehicle does not have a right or invitation to do so. Anyone legally in the home or occupied vehicle may protect it. However, don’t go shooting at police officers in the performance of their duties. Using force or deadly force against a police officer who enters or is trying to entry a home or vehicle is not protected by the statute, and is highly illegal.

You may also use a lesser degree of force, “non-deadly force”, which is force that will not usually cause death or great bodily injury, to stop almost any crime so long as a firearm or other deadly weapon is not used by you. If you do use a firearm or other deadly weapon – the law gets complicated, and you may not be acting legally unless you are trying to stop a forcible felony. Under any circumstance, the use of force must be reasonable, and the degree of force used should not be excessive.
 
You may also use a lesser degree of force, “non-deadly force”, which is force that will not usually cause death or great bodily injury, to stop almost any crime so long as a firearm or other deadly weapon is not used by you. If you do use a firearm or other deadly weapon – the law gets complicated, and you may not be acting legally unless you are trying to stop a forcible felony. Under any circumstance, the use of force must be reasonable, and the degree of force used should not be excessive.

I bet this is the standard across most states. Anyone willing to look up their own states? So far the discussion has been about lethal force, but do any of you know about the non-lethal force rules in your state?

*Edit.

I think you guys are still in the weapons mindset and over complicating things. You can still defend yourself without a weapon. A "sucker punch" or a "groin kick" is enough to "stop the threat", especially since the thief is not paying attention to you.
 
Last edited:
In MI if you have a CPL (CCW) you may not carry any non-lethal weapons
They want to make sure that you damage the guy.................:uhoh::uhoh:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top