So you stumble across a thief...

[hso]

That last sentence from Mr. Gutmacher is important to pay particular attention to.

It's also important to remember that while the law may allow you to use force or even deadly force to stop your property from being taken a DA or jury may not agree that the degree of force was or was not excessive.

If we're not being threatened in any way, but are instead being ignored after being dismissed by the thief what in the world are your options?

Maintain a safe distance beyond 30 ft., report the crime, be as good a witness as possible and ???

 

[Kleanbore]

Posted by 03Shadowbob: Now the tricky part is that I do not think to date there has been case law on defending property on your land [in Florida]...

Why tricky? Might that just be because no higher court has ever agreed to hear an appeal of a conviction that was based on the contention the deadly force may lawfully be used to defend property? Does that come as a surprise?

...however Florida law states that burglary is a forcible felony and as such deadly force is justified and no warnings are necessary if one must use deadly force to stop a burglary.

Fixed it for you. Don't try shooting someone who has burglarized your home to prevent him from taking your property down the driveway. All forcible felonies where I live, and in Florida for that matter if one includes treason, involve the threat of serious harm against a person or persons. Once that threat has passed, the issue changes.

 

[rbernie]

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.

OK - let's talk about that. But first, lemme trot out what I think are the relevant statutes in my state's code. First up - Texas law does allow the use of force to stop a thief or trespasser:

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.

Texas law also allows the use of deadly force in defense of property under specific circumstances:

Sec. 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.

Finally, Texas law allows me to produce a weapon as a threat of deadly force but does not consider that to be deadly force:

Sec. 9.04. THREATS AS JUSTIFIABLE FORCE. The threat of force is justified when the use of force is justified by this chapter. For purposes of this section, a threat to cause death or serious bodily injury by the production of a weapon or otherwise, as long as the actor's purpose is limited to creating an apprehension that he will use deadly force if necessary, does not constitute the use of deadly force.

So, given our scenario - the law seems to say that I can either lay hands on the miscreant or produce a gun to create an apprehension of deadly force, but I cannot use deadly force unless it meets the criteria of Section 9.42. If I stop thinking RIGHT HERE, I will likely conclude that it's OK to sucker-punch our hapless miscreant, if I chose an active intervention as opposed to a more passive reaction.

But I wanna ponder this a bit more, just to make sure that I'm right. After all, the implications for getting this wrong are potentially very dramatic to me and my family....

In retrospect, it's fairly unlikely that the use of force on the miscreant will not be resisted by the miscreant. It's also possible that there will be more than one miscreant. That means that, unless there is only one Bad Guy and unless I manage to cold-cock that lone miscreant, I'll likely have a scuffle on my hands if I attempt to use force. Pushing aside the obvious physical risks that I have created for myself that must be overcome, this 'hands-on' approach also raises the possibility that the scuffle will escalate to a level requiring the use of deadly force. So let's go look at that:

Sec. 9.31. SELF-DEFENSE. (a) Except as provided in Subsection (b), a person is justified in using force against another when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to protect the actor against the other's use or attempted use of unlawful force. The actor's belief that the force was immediately necessary as described by this subsection is presumed to be reasonable if the actor:
(1) knew or had reason to believe that the person against whom the force was used:
(A) unlawfully and with force entered, or was attempting to enter unlawfully
and with force, the actor's occupied habitation, vehicle, or place of business or employment;
(B) unlawfully and with force removed, or was attempting to remove unlawfully and with force, the actor from the actor's habitation, vehicle, or place of business or employment; or
(C) was committing or attempting to commit aggravated kidnapping, murder,
sexual assault, aggravated sexual assault, robbery, or aggravated robbery;
(2) did not provoke the person against whom the force was used; and
(3) was not otherwise engaged in criminal activity, other than a Class C
misdemeanor that is a violation of a law or ordinance regulating traffic at the
time the force was used.

That sounds OK so far.

(b) The use of force against another is not justified:
(1) in response to verbal provocation alone;
(2) to resist an arrest or search that the actor knows is being made by a peace officer, or by a person acting in a peace officer's presence and at his
direction, even though the arrest or search is unlawful, unless the resistance
is justified under Subsection (c);
(3) if the actor consented to the exact force used or attempted by the other;
(4) if the actor provoked the other's use or attempted use of unlawful force, unless: (A) the actor abandons the encounter, or clearly communicates to the other his intent to do so reasonably believing he cannot safely abandon the encounter; and
(B) the other nevertheless continues or attempts to use unlawful force against the actor; or

Hmm. That muddies things somewhat, and leaves some legal ambiguity. Is the use of force in defense of property going to be considered 'provoking' a response that escalated to deadly force? Well, I'd like to think not.

But I know of one case in Austin in which somebody was robbed at gunpoint at night, chased the robber down, wound up in an altercation that resulted in gunplay, and was prosecuted and convicted for their actions. The robbery victim attempted to use the law within Section 9.42 as a defense and failed, since the jury decided that the stolen property could have been otherwise recovered (replaced via insurance claims). More to the point, the robbery victim's claim of self defense under Section 9.31 was rejected by the jury because the altercation that resulted in the use of deadly force was initiated by the robbery victim. In other words, the statements in Texas Penal Code Chapter 9, Sections 9.31, 9.41, and 9.42 did NOT provide sufficient legal cover for the robbery victim to convince the DA, and ultimately a jury, that his conduct was lawful. There are doubless many cases in which a successful defense was mounted, but this is at least one example where it was not.

So, knowing this to be an ambiguous area of the law leads me to conclude that using force, but not deadly force, in defense of property is NOT going to be a wise first choice in my state, or at least in areas within my state - certainly not if I wish to avoid the hassle of a potential indictment and subsequent legal fees. Therefore, I will choose to find alternate means by which to deal with the miscreants.

That will likely involve first calling 911 and leaving the line open during the remainder of the situation, attempting to video/photo the miscreant and whatever transportation that they have, and defending myself against any aggressive actions that they may decide to take.

There may be other options, and that is what I'd really like to hear. But in Texas, based upon what I know, it is simply not a legal slam-dunk to assault a trespasser or thief.

 

[quatin]

That last sentence from Mr. Gutmacher is important to pay particular attention to.

It's also important to remember that while the law may allow you to use force or even deadly force to stop your property from being taken a DA or jury may not agree that the degree of force was or was not excessive.

If we're not being threatened in any way, but are instead being ignored after being dismissed by the thief what in the world are your options?

Maintain a safe distance beyond 30 ft., report the crime, be as good a witness as possible and ???

Maintaining a distance of 30 feet is showing no force at all.

Robbery, burglary and home-invasion burglary are considered forcible felonies, with entitlement to use lethal force, with respect to the state Mr. Gutmacher is talking about.

If you chose not to use lethal force even when entitled to, which DA or Jury can be convinced that unarmed combat is excessive force? It's the lowest ranking degree of force.

 

[LiquidTension]

SECTION 16-11-440. Presumption of reasonable fear of imminent peril when using deadly force against another unlawfully entering residence, occupied vehicle or place of business.

(A) A person is presumed to have a reasonable fear of imminent peril of death or great bodily injury to himself or another person when using deadly force that is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily injury to another person if the person:

(1) against whom the deadly force is used is in the process of unlawfully and forcefully entering, or has unlawfully and forcibly entered a dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle, or if he removes or is attempting to remove another person against his will from the dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle; and

(2) who uses deadly force knows or has reason to believe that an unlawful and forcible entry or unlawful and forcible act is occurring or has occurred.

(B) The presumption provided in subsection (A) does not apply if the person:

(1) against whom the deadly force is used has the right to be in or is a lawful resident of the dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle including, but not limited to, an owner, lessee, or titleholder; or

(2) sought to be removed is a child or grandchild, or is otherwise in the lawful custody or under the lawful guardianship, of the person against whom the deadly force is used; or

(3) who uses deadly force is engaged in an unlawful activity or is using the dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle to further an unlawful activity; or

(4) against whom the deadly force is used is a law enforcement officer who enters or attempts to enter a dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle in the performance of his official duties, and he identifies himself in accordance with applicable law or the person using force knows or reasonably should have known that the person entering or attempting to enter is a law enforcement officer.

(C) A person who is not engaged in an unlawful activity and who is attacked in another place where he has a right to be, including, but not limited to, his place of business, has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his ground and meet force with force, including deadly force, if he reasonably believes it is necessary to prevent death or great bodily injury to himself or another person or to prevent the commission of a violent crime as defined in Section 16-1-60.

(D) A person who unlawfully and by force enters or attempts to enter a person's dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle is presumed to be doing so with the intent to commit an unlawful act involving force or a violent crime as defined in Section 16-1-60.

(E) A person who by force enters or attempts to enter a dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle in violation of an order of protection, restraining order, or condition of bond is presumed to be doing so with the intent to commit an unlawful act regardless of whether the person is a resident of the dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle including, but not limited to, an owner, lessee, or titleholder.

SECTION 16-11-450. Immunity from criminal prosecution and civil actions; law enforcement officer exception; costs.

(A) A person who uses deadly force as permitted by the provisions of this article or another applicable provision of law is justified in using deadly force and is immune from criminal prosecution and civil action for the use of deadly force, unless the person against whom deadly force was used is a law enforcement officer acting in the performance of his official duties and he identifies himself in accordance with applicable law or the person using deadly force knows or reasonably should have known that the person is a law enforcement officer.

(B) A law enforcement agency may use standard procedures for investigating the use of deadly force as described in subsection (A), but the agency may not arrest the person for using deadly force unless probable cause exists that the deadly force used was unlawful.

(C) The court shall award reasonable attorneys' fees, court costs, compensation for loss of income, and all expenses incurred by the defendant in defense of a civil action brought by a plaintiff if the court finds that the defendant is immune from prosecution as provided in subsection (A).

I call 911 and report the situation, then announce myself as law enforcement and order the POS to the ground. If he ignores me that's fine - deputies are on the way already, let him be in the act of pillaging my stuff when they arrive.

 

[hso]

Relying on unarmed combat isn't reliable. Avoiding contact with a miscreant is.

I've studied martial arts much of my life and I've also been attacked on the "street" three different times. I'm about as innocuous looking person you'll ever meet. Shortish, "jolly", nonthreatening. I've learned that it can be very difficult to gauge the ability of an opponent or an attacker and my attackers have learned the same. I would avoid getting into a struggle whenever possible simply because I don't know how strong/fast/skilled/determined the other person might be AND I don't know that they won't resort to using a tool other than hands or feet. I don't want to have to worry about a knife or screw driver because I've faced that before and know what it's like. I don't want to have to worry about a finding out the guy enjoys hitting and getting hit because I've faced that before as well and know what a pain it can be. I don't want to end up with a broken knee, damaged trachea or a dislocated elbow and I don't want to loose an eye or my gun in the struggle (and I don't have to have had that happen to me to know I don't want to risk that).

BTDT, don't want to do it again if I'm not forced to and I can't be forced to unless my life or someone else's is in danger. I might win a fight, but I might not and I'm going to avoid finding out if possible.

 

[Boris bush]

hso, Kleanbore

Here are a couple laws from my state.

9A.52.040
Inference of intent.

In any prosecution for burglary, any person who enters or remains unlawfully in a building may be inferred to have acted with intent to commit a crime against a person or property therein, unless such entering or remaining shall be explained by evidence satisfactory to the trier of fact to have been made without such criminal intent.

Use of deadly force

RCW 9A.16.050
Homicide — By other person — When justifiable.


Homicide is also justifiable when committed either:

(1) In the lawful defense of the slayer, or his or her husband, wife, parent, child, brother, or sister, or of any other person in his presence or company, when there is reasonable ground to apprehend a design on the part of the person slain to commit a felony or to do some great personal injury to the slayer or to any such person, and there is imminent danger of such design being accomplished; or

(2) In the actual resistance of an attempt to commit a felony upon the slayer, in his presence, or upon or in a dwelling, or other place of abode, in which he is.

[1975 1st ex.s. c 260 § 9A.16.050.]

Notice burglary is a felony in my next quote. A felony can be stopped with deadly force. Also not the law infers if you burglarize, then you will be treated as if you are going to commit a crime against a person, also grounds for use of deadly force.

9A.52.020
Burglary in the first degree.

(1) A person is guilty of burglary in the first degree if, with intent to commit a crime against a person or property therein, he or she enters or remains unlawfully in a building and if, in entering or while in the building or in immediate flight therefrom, the actor or another participant in the crime (a) is armed with a deadly weapon, or (b) assaults any person.

(2) Burglary in the first degree is a class A felony.

9A.52.025
Residential burglary.

(1) A person is guilty of residential burglary if, with intent to commit a crime against a person or property therein, the person enters or remains unlawfully in a dwelling other than a vehicle.

(2) Residential burglary is a class B felony. In establishing sentencing guidelines and disposition standards, the sentencing guidelines commission and the juvenile disposition standards commission shall consider residential burglary as a more serious offense than second degree burglary.

Pretty clear and cut what can be done.

edit: Almost forgot. From what the OP asked, if the person ignores me and is now unlawfully in my residence commiting a felony it will be infered he will commit a crime against people and property. That is a felony. Use of deadly force is legal on them grounds. So some good advice for someone wanting to burglarize in the pacNW. Give up and wait for the police to arive so you can get 3 squares a day, free cable and a free gym membership. Seems pretty good compared to the other options......

 

[Six]

No, point was that he is no longer in your residence - since I specifically wanted to avoid laws around castle doctrine or home invasions which create a far more clear cut scenario.

 

[quatin]

I will admit that in order to be 100% sure you won't get in trouble with the law or get hurt, you should stand aside and watch the thief steal your property. I hope we have all learned that as THR members. The court isn't always fair and neither is the law. The vast majority of the time though, the bad guy gets locked up and the good guy goes home.

However, I'm willing to bet that most of you won't stand by as someone steals your property. I'm willing to bet that most of you will attempt some type of confrontation. For those of you who decide to do something, I am heralding unarmed self defense instead of deadly force in this situation. The scenario the OP stated is about as easy as it comes for unarmed self defense. It's the ideal situation. It's not rbernie's situation where you chase down a thief or get into a confrontation where the thief acknowledges he's in a fight with you.

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.

The thief doesn't see you as a threat and turns around to find more stuff to steal. It doesn't get any easier as that. If you ever heard the phrase "The hardest hit is the one you don't see coming", it's talking about this situation. The guy can't defend himself with his back turned and he's not expecting you to do anything. 1 or 2 punches and he will be knocked out. My Krav instructor always taught us to go in hard and fast. You don't want to get into a fight, you end the fight before it even starts. At any point in time, you can disengage and just run away.

 

[Boris bush]

Six

This will help. Number two. Residential burglary is a felony. Also not in my earlier post. Deadly force can also be used to stop a felony. The act of the felony does not have to be in the house.

RCW 9A.16.020
Use of force — When lawful.


The use, attempt, or offer to use force upon or toward the person of another is not unlawful in the following cases:

(1) Whenever necessarily used by a public officer in the performance of a legal duty, or a person assisting the officer and acting under the officer's direction;

(2) Whenever necessarily used by a person arresting one who has committed a felony and delivering him or her to a public officer competent to receive him or her into custody;

(3) Whenever used by a party about to be injured, or by another lawfully aiding him or her, in preventing or attempting to prevent an offense against his or her person, or a malicious trespass, or other malicious interference with real or personal property lawfully in his or her possession, in case the force is not more than is necessary;

(4) Whenever reasonably used by a person to detain someone who enters or remains unlawfully in a building or on real property lawfully in the possession of such person, so long as such detention is reasonable in duration and manner to investigate the reason for the detained person's presence on the premises, and so long as the premises in question did not reasonably appear to be intended to be open to members of the public;

(5) Whenever used by a carrier of passengers or the carrier's authorized agent or servant, or other person assisting them at their request in expelling from a carriage, railway car, vessel, or other vehicle, a passenger who refuses to obey a lawful and reasonable regulation prescribed for the conduct of passengers, if such vehicle has first been stopped and the force used is not more than is necessary to expel the offender with reasonable regard to the offender's personal safety;

(6) Whenever used by any person to prevent a mentally ill, mentally incompetent, or mentally disabled person from committing an act dangerous to any person, or in enforcing necessary restraint for the protection or restoration to health of the person, during such period only as is necessary to obtain legal authority for the restraint or custody of the person.

Once again. It is very clear what can happen. I have answered your question according to my local laws. I am sorry if it does not jive with what you wanted to hear. I clearly have certain rights I can protect. Crime dont pay in the pacNW.

 

[hso]

BB,

You reallllllllly need to deal with the question instead of creating justifications for your preferred course of action.

Pretty clear and cut what can be done.

Because a thing can be done doesn't make it advisable nor does it make it tactically sound. If the law gave clear freedom to kill a thief by any means for any theft then the legal and tactically sound thing to do would be to shoot them with a highpowered rifle or shotgun from a safe distance (preferably undetected).

BUT we're bound by what the law permits us to do in each of our separate jurisdictions. A reasonable person stays clearly within the law without inferences or interpretation as much as possible.

A smart person does what is tactically sound within those restrictions because being allowed to do something isn't the same as being able to do it with minimum risk.

If I'm crippled or killed in a struggle with some punk with a stereo, I'm not able to protect myself or family should someone ruthless come into my home with my family there. I've fought to defend my life before and I'll pick my fights whenever possible to make sure that I can do it again, when needed.

Those of you advocating some sort of unarmed combat need to understand that the closer you get to your attacker the less certain you are of the outcome.

 

[Six]

Once again. It is very clear what can happen. I have answered your question according to my local laws. I am sorry if it does not jive with what you wanted to hear. I clearly have certain rights I can protect. Crime dont pay in the pacNW.

I simply asked a question, please do not presume that I did so looking for a particular response.

 

[quatin]

Those of you advocating some sort of unarmed combat need to understand that the closer you get to your attacker the less certain you are of the outcome.

There's risk in everything you do. In this case, I'm saying the risk of you getting hurt outweighs the risk of the trouble you'll get into if you shot the thief. Of course no risk would be to stand and watch.

That's just me though. I've been involved with traditional martial arts, krav maga and kick boxing. If you present me with a perfect situation like this, I'd say there's little to no risk to me unless the guy has a steel head and steel nuts.

If the thief was confrontational and wants to fight or draws a weapon, then I would consider drawing my own weapon or running away.

 

[Bullnettles]

LiquidTension

I call 911 and report the situation, then announce myself as law enforcement and order the POS to the ground. If he ignores me that's fine - deputies are on the way already, let him be in the act of pillaging my stuff when they arrive.

Are you LEO? If not, I can see the guy using it against you and getting off on a BS technicality (sp???). Heck, they may charge you.

 

[Boris bush]

Six

No worries.

hso

good grief man. I did deal with the question. I answered it. I also gave reference to the local laws that justify what I can do. Like others have said. A felony has been commited on my property. I am being ignored and or being approached by the felon. As stated by another poster, I would also give them the option to wait to be taken to their retirement home with free meals and gym with cable tv. I aint a violent person. If they come towards me the felon I have legal rights to use force and or deadly force against will be seen as a threat and the threat will be eliminated. If they die during the elimination of threat process then higher powers made that decision. What is clear is I will have been legaly justified in what I did.

It is a clear cut answer with laws quoted for reference if anyone had exact questions on the legality of actions that can be taken where I live. All someone needs to do is quote a local law from where they live to show how they can not do the same as I. As always, with the rules you put in place and the facts being quoted with the actual codes numbers for anyone to lookup themself makes this thread alot easier to understand why some have different answers than others.

I have given mine. The laws have been shown. I realllllllllllly need to do nothing more. Some still question what I might legaly do. Thats fine. It will not change my states laws and it will not change theirs, or my actions within them laws.

Do you agree with me that I have clearly shown what I can do and given proof of just how legal these actions would be? If not then I can be of no more help. The laws have been quoted. My possible actions have been stated. The laws confirm I will be good to go on any actions I may take. Pretty clear and cut.

 

[TexasRifleman]

Do you agree with me that I have clearly shown what I can do and given proof of just how legal these actions would be? If not then I can be of no more help. The laws have been quoted. My possible actions have been stated. The laws confirm I will be good to go on any actions I may take. Pretty clear and cut.

I think the point several of us are trying to make here is that the statutes alone are not enough to think about.

There is a very good chance, in your state and even in Texas, that you will be charged anyway. Many prosecutors are unwilling to take the responsibility of making the call, they will defer to a Grand Jury and once that happens the letter of the statutes themselves may not be enough to help.

Texas for example requires all homicides to go before a Grand Jury. It happens just as often as not that a righteous shoot is indicted anyway only to be found not guilty at trial.

Still comes out on the right side but there are financial and psychological costs for that even if you win in the system.

The point we are trying to make is to not ignore the possibility of things going very wrong from the legal angle when you are planning strategies and tactics. Then, if one still comes to the decision to shoot, the possible consequences will at least have been included in the decision making.

Yes it's unfortunate that you have to stop and think about lawsuits and prison when someone is clearly violating the law in many many ways and even on your own property, even with Castle Doctrines and everything else, but that's just reality.

You cannot, nor can anyone, guarantee that you will come through a defensive shooting untouched by the legal system, no matter what the texts of the statutes say.

 

[Kleanbore]

Posted by Boris bush: Notice burglary is a felony in my next quote.

It is a felony everywhere. In fact, it is a forcible felony in most places.

A felony can be stopped with deadly force.

That was true in the early days of the English Common Law, but it is no longer true, primarily because the list of crimes that are defined as felonies now includes much lesser crimes than would justify the use of deadly force.

Where you live, deadly force may be used...

In the actual resistance of an attempt to commit a felony upon the slayer, in his presence, or upon or in a dwelling, or other place of abode, in which he is.

That's RCW 165.050, which has to do with justification of homicide--deadly force.

Deadly force can also be used to stop a felony. The act of the felony does not have to be in the house.

Quote:
RCW 9A.16.020
Use of force — When lawful.

Force. Force. Notice the absence of the word "deadly"? You have to go to RCW 9a.16.050. Remember, the intruder in the OP's scenario was on the way out--not trying to commit a felony upon the citizen (usually referred to in most jurisdictions as a forcible felony).

Want some proof? Remember the unfortunate and very foolish young man in the Seattle area (somewhere north of Sea-Tac) who not so long ago used a Mosin-Nagant to shoot the man taking the sub-woofer from his car? The arresting authorities immediately told him that he could not use deadly force to defend property, so he changed his rationalization to self defense, which didn't fly. He got a light sentence, but barring a Presidential pardon, he'll never legally own a firearm again for the rest of his life.

I have answered your question according to my local laws.

You have answered the question according to your own lay interpretation of your local laws. Never, ever a good idea. Do not rely on my advice, but for heaven's sake don't rely on your own lay reading, either. Just don't do it.

Want a suggestion? Consult a lawyer. Here's an even better suggestion: Get in touch with Armed Citizen's Legal Defense Network, LLC. Here's how:

http://www.armedcitizensnetwork.org/

In the mean time, should you happen to become the protagonist in a drama like the scenario described by the OP, follow the advice contained in Post #2.

 

[Kleanbore]

Do you agree with me that I have clearly shown what I can do and given proof of just how legal these actions would be?

Absolutely not, by any stretch.

If not then I can be of no more help.

I hate to put this quite this way, and I do mean noted disrespect, but it is you who needs the help, I'm afraid.

The laws have been quoted.

Yep.

My possible actions have been stated.

Yep.

The laws confirm I will be good to go on any actions I may take.

Nope.

Pretty clear and cut.

Actually, no, the application of criminal law is never quite "clear cut". The evidence and testimony may be contradictory, and one may get a jury that is more or less sympathetic.

 

[Boris bush]

TexasRifleman

I have thought it through. I fully 100% expect to be sued. I am prepared. I will also go to court a happy man that I am alive and or my family was protected.

The prosecutor in my state will not put false charges on me. He has job security to think about first. Number (1) in my next quote makes it very very clear what my rights are.

RCW 9A.16.110
Defending against violent crime — Reimbursement.


(1) No person in the state shall be placed in legal jeopardy of any kind whatsoever for protecting by any reasonable means necessary, himself or herself, his or her family, or his or her real or personal property, or for coming to the aid of another who is in imminent danger of or the victim of assault, robbery, kidnapping, arson, burglary, rape, murder, or any other violent crime as defined in RCW 9.94A.030.

(2) When a person charged with a crime listed in subsection (1) of this section is found not guilty by reason of self-defense, the state of Washington shall reimburse the defendant for all reasonable costs, including loss of time, legal fees incurred, and other expenses involved in his or her defense. This reimbursement is not an independent cause of action. To award these reasonable costs the trier of fact must find that the defendant's claim of self-defense was sustained by a preponderance of the evidence. If the trier of fact makes a determination of self-defense, the judge shall determine the amount of the award.

(3) Notwithstanding a finding that a defendant's actions were justified by self-defense, if the trier of fact also determines that the defendant was engaged in criminal conduct substantially related to the events giving rise to the charges filed against the defendant the judge may deny or reduce the amount of the award. In determining the amount of the award, the judge shall also consider the seriousness of the initial criminal conduct.

Nothing in this section precludes the legislature from using the sundry claims process to grant an award where none was granted under this section or to grant a higher award than one granted under this section.

(4) Whenever the issue of self-defense under this section is decided by a judge, the judge shall consider the same questions as must be answered in the special verdict under subsection (4) [(5)] of this section.

(5) Whenever the issue of self-defense under this section has been submitted to a jury, and the jury has found the defendant not guilty, the court shall instruct the jury to return a special verdict in substantially the following form:

I will spend as much time as it takes. When the innocent verdict is read, I get the money back I spent and the person that made the tax payers pay my lawyer and pay my wages will not have a job after the next election. FWIW, I also hear on the news all the time about how police questioned at the scene a shooter in a legal shoot, then released them to go home. A few days later I have heard in 100% of these reports that after further review, no charges will be filed. Good shoots never go bad because of one persons agenda to put anyone in jail (where I live).

I appreciate the concern. After life has been protected (the only reason I would use deadly force), I will deal with whatever comes next. I am not afraid of a lawsuit to gamble on my safety. It is what it is.

 

[Kleanbore]

After life has been protected (the only reason I would use deadly force), I will deal with whatever comes next.

I may have misunderstood you. I have been under the impression that you have been justifying the use of deadly force in the scenario described by the OP. There were no threats against life in that scenario.

deadly forec is justifiable to defend against a felony. Residential burglary is a felony.

Yeah, if you are in the house when it is burglarized, you may have to use deadly force In the actual resistance of an attempt to commit a felony upon [you or someone else]. You would certainly be justified. However, in the OP's scenario, if there had been a burglary, it had already occurred. There's nothing to defend against. And you sure can't impose a penalty on the felon for what he has already done.

If you are going to tell me I am not legal in my state. Refer to the laws.

I have absolutely no intention of doing anything other than providing food for thought sufficient to (1) motivate you to seek qualified advice rather than relying upon your own lay interpretation of statutes, which can be a prescription for disaster, and (2) setting out enough information to prevent others who may be reading this from being badly misled.

 

[Larry Ashcraft]

Boris, I think there's a fly in your ointment. Correct me if I'm wrong. You say:

Notice burglary is a felony in my next quote.

But your state law says:

(1) A person is guilty of burglary in the first degree if, with intent to commit a crime against a person or property therein, he or she enters or remains unlawfully in a building and if, in entering or while in the building or in immediate flight therefrom, the actor or another participant in the crime (a) is armed with a deadly weapon, or (b) assaults any person.

(2) Burglary in the first degree is a class A felony.

Looks like you may use only against first degree burglary, which has the above caveats. So "burglary is a felony" is too simplified a statement. "burglary can be a felony" would be closer to the truth.

I think some of the above posters are right. It's dangerous to try to interpret the law as a layperson. You will be guaranteed to get some nasty surprises in court if you do.

Now, I'm outta this one.

 

[Kleanbore]

Well, here's the original hypothetical scenario; I've selected one of the several alternatives:

... you go out to the car to get something, and find someone going through the glove box or console, or in the process of removing the stereo....

You're carrying a gun of some form, and the thief notices you at the same time you notice him.

Presumably, you will yell something like stop, get out, get off my lawn, etc etc, and maybe draw your gun.

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.

What do you do?

Guess what! There was an actual case discussed here last year that was remarkably similar in a lot of ways.

Here's the scenario:

[Douglas] Sheets was inside his first-floor apartment, which sits directly above his car port, on Sept. 24, 2008, when he heard what sounded like someone breaking into his car just before 7 p.m.

Sheets said he stepped out onto his balcony and saw men breaking into his car, a 2001 Toyota Camry. He then retreated into his apartment and grabbed his Russian-made Mosin-Nagant file Model 9145 M44, he told police.

The suspected car prowlers spotted Sheets and his firearm, the statement said. Three of them took off in the car, turned a corner and waited for two others to catch up.

Sheets told detectives one of the two was carrying a 27-pound subwoofer he had taken from his car.

Here's what Mr. Sheets did:

Sheets ordered the men to the ground, but they did not comply and one reached toward his waistband.

Sheets said he then pointed his rifle and fired while standing some 60 to 70 feet away from the victim, who was facing away.

The bullet went through the victim's head, police said.

The surviving car prowler hopped into the waiting getaway car and fled, according to the document.

Sheets yelled for someone to call 911. When officers arrived, they searched the victim's clothing, as well the street and the area surrounding the apartment building, but did not find a gun.

Sheets told investigators he did not mean to kill the victim, but when he saw the victim reach for his waist band, "he wasn't going to take any chances," court documents said.

Here's what happened to the shooter:

A man accused of shooting and killing a suspected car prowler whom he believed had taken a subwoofer from his car has pleaded guilty.

KOMO radio reporter Jon Repp snapped this picture of Douglas C. Sheets (center in white shirt), appearing Friday in King County Superior Court to face a charge of second-degree manslaughter in the death of Jhovany Hernandez.

Prosecutors said Sheets pleaded guilty to the charge in exchange for a recommended sentence of 9 months work release - an exceptionally reduced term for the crime. The actual sentencing will take place Oct. 30.

Since the prohibition of gun ownership is based on the maximum possible charge to the crime for which one has been convicted, the reduced sentence did not help Sheets in that respect.

This happened in King County in Washington State.

http://northseattle.komonews.com/content/guilty-plea-deadly-shooting-car-prowler

 

[Boris bush]

I may have misunderstood you. I have been under the impression that you have been justifying the use of deadly force in the scenario described by the OP. There were no threats against life in that scenario.

Even though I would be justified to use deadly force where I live to stop the felony, I would only do it if a threat to me or my family were to come about. The law just gives me some wiggle room. I have no need or desire to use deadly force, but will the instant I l feel I need to.

Yeah, if you are in the house when it is burglarized, you may have to use deadly force In the actual resistance of an attempt to commit a felony upon [you or someone else]. You would certainly be justified. However, in the OP's scenario, if there had been a burglary, it had already occurred. There's nothing to defend against. And you sure can't impose a penalty on the felon for what he has already done.

The law says felony. It does not have to happen in the house or even on the property. Anything defined as a felony. Even then I aint stupid (despite what some here think). I will not use deadly force on a felony where no one is in any harm what so ever. In that case someone could easily build a case against a legal shoot. Things change when it is on my property. I have no where to go, run or hide at home. I am at my safe place. It is infered in the law that a burglar has the intentions to commit the most severe crimes. They can be legaly dealt with as such. If I feel the slightest bit at all myself or family member is in danger I will do what is right by me and mine. I will also be covered under the law.

The felon that is in the act of a felony on my now occuied property will be dealt with on an action basis, not a reaction and escilation of reaction to my presence. I have no room or desire to compromise my safety. The law has sided with the legal use of force and or deadly force in every case I have seen for violent crimes.


That is what I would do. I have given the laws. If you think I am wrong then go re read them. It clearly states what I say will be legal. Do not quote half a law and interject what you think (not just you kleanbore) will make it how you have pondered it to be.

If you do not agree with me and my planned legal actions thats fine. Then say you do not agree. DO not try to make my planned actions illegal by misquoting then adding what you think to justify it. Real life does not work that way.

 

[Boris bush]

Larry

Now quote the law where burglary of a residence is a felony. It says nowhere you need to be in the residence.

The felony does not even need to happen on my property or residence. It makes no distinction where a felony must be commited.

I will have to respectfuly ask everyone to quote in full the laws. Not just parts then interject what you think.

 

[Boris bush]

You guys are lost.

You have nothing better to do than think of ways to set yourself up for failure. You whipup some wild daydreams about how you should not defend you or yours. Then put in place a plan of action that sets you up for failure.

thats your choice. Not mine.

Keep it within the rules a moderator asked to be followed. Show in the laws where you have proof of where what you say is fact. No half quotes or interjections of what you only think.

Learn the law of your land. I have for mine. I can not or will not advise in the slightest how you should go about doing anything legal. Even if your choice is to laydown your rights and bow to those that will help themself to what is yours. That includes upto rape, kidnapp, torture, murder or a combonation of all. It is my legal right to do what I have said I will do. You can not tell me or convince me somehow I am not legal (makes me chuckle when you try though) in what I might do. I already know, I do not need your help. Notice I do not critisize you for your planned lack of action. Thats your choice. carry on thinkers. Think away. For anyone that reads this, just go back and read the laws I have quoted and read how I have been misquoted with interjected wild thoughts and dreams put in to make me somehow a murderer.

I wonder why the misquoted posts have not been deleted yet.