So you stumble across a thief...

[Kleanbore]

I don't think we need to discuss summary executions, but I think that some actions that people may take may technically break a law.

Actually, if one "technically" breaks the law by committing an unlawful act knowingly and willingly, he has broken the law, period.

You do not want people saying that they would do that.

 

[Six]

I understand that, but I think that the discussion becomes overly nitpicky if every single action must be shown to be legal and be explicitly demonstrated to be supported by law.

But I'll concede the issue, just trying to clarify what I wanted to focus to be.

(Feel free to take discussions-on-the-discussion to PM)

 

[TexasRifleman]

I understand that, but I think that the discussion becomes overly nitpicky if every single action must be shown to be legal and be explicitly demonstrated to be supported by law.

No I understand but the thing is that after the situation is over the cops, maybe a prosecutor, and potentially a jury will nit pick every little thing.

What seems like a tiny thing at the time may be the one thing that keeps you out of prison for a bad shoot.

This idea that's been posted that a good shoot is always a good shoot and the law will always work out scares me

But you are right, sometimes things happen and in the middle of a dangerous situation playing lawyer is probably a bad idea.

 

[Kleanbore]

Posted by Six:. ..just trying to clarify what I wanted to focus to be.

Good, well done.

As TexasRifleman points out, a seemingly small factor could determine whether an act of force, or a threat of force, constituted a crime or was justifiable under the law. That small factor, of course, will be considered among the totality of the circumstances, but it could make all of the difference. Drawing too soon, firing too late, using a weapon when it is not immediately necessary, can all get one into a world of trouble.

It is important to remember one other thing: for a defense of justifiability (so called because, absent circumstances that make the act lawful, pointing or shooting a gun at someone is a crime, and actually defined in the code where I live) to succeed, one must be able to present evidence of justifiability. If all goes well, the state will not present sufficient contradictory evidence to defeat the defense.

That's why "if it's a good shoot" is not, as TexasRifleman points out, a very good argument.

I started carrying just about two years ago. Frankly, until I took the required CCW training, some things had never been made clear to me. Here are a few for food for thought:

• Drawing when you do not face an imminent threat of death or great bodily harm is unlawful in my juridiction.
• Use of deadly force to protect property is not permitted in my jurisdiction (it is in Texas under certain circumstances).
• Detaining a perp is permitted only under certain circumstances and entails a whole bouquet of serious risks.
• Never fire a "warning shot."
• Ouside the home, if safe retreat is possible, the use of deadly force is not permitted (this is not true in all jurisdictions).
• Open carry is forbidden by county ordinance in many counties, and there is no central source for that information

The above are in addition to where one may and may not carry, duty to inform, and so on.

I also became aware for the first time of the concept of an affirmative defense.

From previous experience, I was already well aware of a few other important things:

• The importance of not saying anything to anyone (friends, neighbors, the media, or the police) about an act that may be investigated as a crime or lead to civil litigation (see Massad Ayoob's advice on what to say to arriving first responders).
• The importance of not posting or writing anthing that may adversely influence a possible determination of propriety or state of mind at a later date.
• The fact that a lay interpretation of a single statute, absent a knowledge of relevant other statutes and of prior definitive legal interpretations, is always a very bad idea.

Best short summary? The gun is a last resort.

 

[beeenbag]

This idea that's been posted that a good shoot is always a good shoot and the law will always work out scares me

I think this whole thread in general should paint a very good portrait as to what it would be like in the jury deliberation room should you ever get to that point.

The jury will be made up of 12 different people with 12 different minds and 12 different views and outlooks on the situation at hand. They are not going to see it so "clear cut".

If you push the laws to the legal limit of your lay interpretation, you lean heavily on 12 people seeing things exactly like you do. That isn't very good odds.

 

[Kleanbore]

If you push the laws to the legal limit of your lay interpretation, you lean heavily on 12 people seeing things exactly like you do. That isn't very good odds.

Excellent point.

 

[Shadow 7D]

This is something I found while look at CCW issues and the law, try to find and understand articles like this for your state, as this something both your lawyer (hopefully), the prosecutor and definitely the judge will have read and understand. So knowing the law and how the law was interpreted in various SD cases, both successful and otherwise helps you understand what the law means. Some things, like the author states that a prosecutor will offer a plea when faced with a good SD case, staying on scene and immediately informing officers that you are the victim and you acted in Self Defense, that fact that the judge can summarily dismiss the charges if its not a question of the facts (evidence), and is required to, even if the prosecution is pushing the trial, and that they may try to plead before the judge rules to avoid the charges being dismissed.

These are SD, or necessarily the legal issues, but it gives you some insight on the process you will go though if you ever have to defend yourself.
http://www.law.duke.edu/shell/cite.pl?23+Alaska+L.+Rev.+171

 

[Boris bush]

I would gather most here are NRA members. I just read page 10, August issue of American rifleman. You guys need to get a membership so you can read this stuff!! A woman answered her door with a shotgun pointed in someones face. The men claimed they were lost. the police arrested.......... the men, no crime, shotgun in their face AND they were arrested.

reality folks. Go read it. Made me think of you guys.

 

[Kleanbore]

A woman answered her door with a shotgun pointed in someones face. The men claimed they were lost. the police arrested.......... the men, no crime, shotgun in their face AND they were arrested.

No crime? Really! Doesn't make sense. Might I suggest that if the police arrested someone, they most surely had probable cause to believe that a crime had in fact been committed?

You'll see cases in all of the issues. Before The Armed Citizen .com was shut down, you could find reports of hundreds of cases in which firearms were used lawfully by citizens.

Do you see some relationship between that article and the scenario proposed here by the OP?

By the way, I have presented handguns on three separate occasions involving actual or attemped home invasion. It happens.

 

[Sam1911]

A woman answered her door with a shotgun pointed in someones face. The men claimed they were lost. the police arrested.......... the men, no crime, shotgun in their face AND they were arrested.

reality folks. Go read it. Made me think of you guys.

It is utterly amazing just how many news accounts there are out there which aren't analogous to the one under discussion isn't it?

I read one recently about a man and his dog, traveling the land, drinking beer, and doing good deeds.

It wasn't about confronting a thief after he's burgled your home, either.

Strange. Probably a conspiracy.

 

[Boris bush]

But they were only lost.. Never made a threat of any kind. You guys said earlier that a gun in hand to greet someone would get you a threat with a deadly weapon charge.

A crime sure was commited. unlawful entry. Surely not a situation the home owner was justified to display a deadly weapon. Based on what you have said before

 

[Carl N. Brown]

Arguments from Authority (and Opinion)

Killing in defense of innocent life is sanctioned by scripture:
A general reading of the biblical law is that a threat to property
only does not deserve death, but the thief should be bound by law
to make restitution.

However, a thief who comes by night into a dwelling is likely to
be a cutthroat intent on mayhem and does deserve death in order
to protect the innocent.

There is a world of difference between robbery and thievery.
A robber is threatening death or bodily harm, not merely
thieving property.

Exodus (KJV translation)

21:14 But if a man come presumptuously upon his neighbour,
to slay him with guile; thou shalt take him from mine altar,
that he may die.

22:2 If a thief be found breaking up, and be smitten that
he die, there shall no blood be shed for him.

Exodus (TLB paraphrase/translation)

21:14 However, if a man deliberately attacks another, intending
to kill him, drag him even from my altar, and kill him.

22:2 If a thief is caught in the act of breaking into a house
and is killed, the one who killed him is not guilty.

There is no question that someone threatening to take your life
may be met with lethal force:

"If someone comes to kill you, arise quickly and kill him."
The Talmud, Tractate Sanhedrin. 1994. The Schottenstein Edition.
New York: Mesorah Publications. Vol. 2, 72a.

"Someone ever tries to kill you, you try to kill 'em right back!"
--Malcom Reynolds to Saffron in "Our Mrs. Reynolds" epsiode #6 of
Firefly, aired 4 Oct 2002.

Personally I feel that neither my money nor my life are some robber's
to take, and knowing that two friends of my brother were killed by
a car jacker who took their pocket change, their keys and their
lives, I am not inclined to trust the good will and benign intentions of
robbers.

A petty thief confronted by the property owner becomes a robber
if they don't cease and desist and drop the goods and show elbows
and behinder.

As far a thief brazenly stealing property but not posing a threat of death
of bodily harm, he may be subjected to reasonable use of force by
an authority even higher than Mal:

from 01_02_05.PDF released by UK Crown Prosecution Services

HOUSEHOLDERS AND THE USE OF FORCE AGAINST INTRUDERS

Joint Public Statement from the Crown Prosecution Service and
the Association of Chief Police Officers

. . . .

The Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) and Chief
Constables are responding to public
concern over the support offered by the law
and confusion about householders defending
themselves.

. . . .

Anyone can use reasonable force to protect
themselves or others, or to carry out an arrest
or to prevent crime. You are not expected to make
fine judgements over the level of force you use
in the heat of the moment. So long as you only do
what you honestly and instinctively believe is
necessary in the heat of the moment, that would be
the strongest evidence of you acting lawfully and
in self-defence. This is still the case if you use
something to hand as a weapon.

What if I chase them as they run off?

This situation is different as you are no
longer acting in self-defence and so the same
degree of force may not be reasonable. However,
you are still allowed to use reasonable force
to recover your property and make a citizen's
arrest. You should consider your own safety and,
for example, whether the police have been
called. A rugby tackle or a single blow would
probably be reasonable. Acting out of malice and
revenge with the intent of inflicting punishment
through injury or death would not.

 

[M-Cameron]

Cel phone camera and/or video, oc spray, and 911.

If it's not in Texas at night, I would get some cell phone pictures and call 911....this while being very alert for his possible accomplices.

No, I will not yell anything, and I will not draw.

goodness, you people are making crime sound less dangerous by the day.....

but why not stops and invite the criminal stealing your possessions in for a cup of tea( but not too hot, god forbid he burn himself and sue you)...while enjoying your luke warm tea, why not ask him why he was stealing your possessions, maybe he has fallen on hard times and desperately needs the money to pay for his sons kidney transplant.....heck, why not offer to pay for the surgery your self out of kindness....when you finish your tea(which by the way you didnt put sugar in just in case the criminal is diabetic) why not offer him your car keys so he doesnt need to walk all the way home.......

.....seriously people......if i saw someone stealing my stuff, and i told them to get lost and they were foolish enough to stick around......they'd be getting their knees broken with a baseball bat.....i wouldnt be sitting around clambering over what was the absolute legal and kosher way to deal with this guy....

 

[Carl N. Brown]

To Opening Post: we have had cases locally of people detaining burglars at gun point for arrest by responding officers. Most no shots fired. BUT including a case where a neighbor stopped a burglar leaving a house with stolen goods and ordered him to stop as the neighbor had a cellphone 911 in one hand and a .45 1911 in the other; there was a struggle over gun, shot fired, and second shot fired after burglar drove at the neighbor and then drove away, second shot thru the car into the robber as he drove away, whole event recorded on 911 call, and the grand jury refused to indict the neighbor. As the burglar was pertretrating a felony, he cannot sue for accidental or intention injury as a result of attempting a felony on the property of another.

 

[Boris bush]

I was at a buddies tonight and read an article in SWAT magazine. Send an email to Terrill Hoffman. He wrote an article about how he chased down burglars. He mentions how under NC state law, that the felony commited against his property justified deadly force.

Contact him at swatmag.com. Ask about his August 2009 Against all odds article.

Let us know what you learn..

 

[cassandrasdaddy]

But they were only lost.

they were arrested for being lost? tough hood

 

[Kleanbore]

Posted by Boris bush: A crime sure was commited. unlawful entry.

Oh, so they entered the home unlawfully?

Surely not a situation the home owner was justified to display a deadly weapon. Based on what you have said before

And just what does constitute residential burglary in you jurisdiction, and what can a homeowner do to stop it if it proves to be immediately necessary?

But wait--maybe the homeowner in the article lives in a jurisdiction such as mine, in which an unlawful entry provides a presumption of a reasonable belief that the resident was in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm. That may be in the code, or it may be in the case law.

You haven't told us enough about the case.

Where does she live? And by the way, was this "unlawful entry" of which you speak forcible? That may or may not be a requirement.

And one more time--just how does the account in the article relate to the OP's scenario?

 

[Kleanbore]

if i saw someone stealing my stuff, and i told them to get lost and they were foolish enough to stick around......they'd be getting their knees broken with a baseball bat.....

Nothing like posting one's intent to commit a crime involving deadly force! Hope the poster is never involved in an incident in which the evidence is contradictory.

 

[M-Cameron]

if i saw someone stealing my stuff, and i told them to get lost and they were foolish enough to stick around......they'd be getting their knees broken with a baseball bat.....

Nothing like posting one's intent to commit a crime involving deadly force! Hope the poster is never involved in an incident in which the evidence is contradictory.

last i checked....one does not typically die from a broken knee.....

you want to take something from me....im gonna take something from you....you dont like my prices...shop somewhere else.

 

[Kleanbore]

last i checked....one does not typically die from a broken knee.....

Do you know the definition of deadly force?

And one other point--do you really believe that hitting someone with a bat, unless you are doing so because it is immediately to prevent a serious felony (depends on the jurisdiction) or to defend yourself or a third person from an imminent threat of death or serious bodily harm, is not a serious crime?

My point had been to be careful what you post; it will exist forever, it is subject to discovery, and it can be used against you in the future in a number of ways--to establish possible state of mind, to lead investigators to other evidence....

I also think you should learn something about when you may lawfully use force, and deadly force, and when you may not. Here's something that may help:

http://www.teddytactical.com/archive/MonthlyStudy/2006/02_StudyDay.htm

Also this:

http://www.useofforce.us/

And for heavens sake have someone qualified to do so explain your states laws.

Might I also suggest this:

http://www.amazon.com/Lessons-Armed-America-Mark-Walters/dp/0982248768

 

[TexasRifleman]

last i checked....one does not typically die from a broken knee.....

As with many things in the law the words don't necessarily mean what they say. "Deadly Force" usually includes in the definition something along the lines of "serious bodily injury or death", not just death.

So, swinging a baseball bat at someone could easily meet the definition of use of deadly force, not just force.

As posted several times in this thread no one intends to be soft on crime here I don't believe, rather they realize that being hard on crime may have serious costs if the action taken is ever questioned by the legal system.

Those costs have to be weighed against the costs of simply being a good witness and hoping the cops can catch the bad guy later. Sometimes the decision may be to use deadly force, sometimes the decision to wait may make more sense.

It will be a split second decision that, perhaps, is questioned in extreme detail by a prosecutor or jury. So, running situations through your head beforehand and getting familiar with your local laws should come into any good self defense plan.

 

[hso]

A baseball bat is a deadly weapon. A bat to the knee produces a crippling injury. Getting close enough to use a bat puts the BG as close to you as you are to him (sounds silly, but you get the idea).

Be sure you understand the legal and tactical implications.

 

[M-Cameron]

i suppose you guys are right......i guess im just not a huge fan of waiting around for someone else to solve my problems and hope they catch the jerk

 

[hso]

Pepper spray or taser aren't deadly weapons, won't produce crippling injuries or kill (except in the extreme), and keep you beyond the easy rush range.

Heck, if being tactically sound in this situation was all that was needed instead of having to consider the legal and ethical, we'd put two to the chest and one to the head from a safe distance. That might satisfy the anger and blood lust for some, but probably would have unintended consequences we still don't want.

 

[Kleanbore]

i suppose you guys are right......i guess im just not a huge fan of waiting around for someone else to solve my problems and hope they catch the jerk

I don't think any of us are--it's just that it's usually the best idea.

Sometimes things work out for the best, sometimes they don't.

Bask in the early nineteen seventies, I was driving to work listening to the radio. I was shocked to hear the very distinctly identifiable voice of a man in my department explaining with his strong Aegean accent to a reporter how he had stopped a car theft with his rifle and held the two perps at gunpoint until the police arrived to take them away. It had just happened.

When I got to work the man was filling everyone in on the details. The car was an Oldsmobile belonging to a resident of the apartment building next door. The rifle was a .22 semi-automatic. Our hero shouted some politically incorrect threats at the perps, and they remained with their hands up until they were arrested. They "caught the jerks" because of his actions.

Knowing what I think I do now, I don't think what he did was lawful, but he was not charged. He did, however, end up very angry.

A couple of days later he reported to us that another car, a convertible, was taken from a parking place right next to the Oldsmobile. We talked about the rising crime rate in his neighborhood.

What made him angry was seeing the very same perps he had apprehended waving at him insolently from the stolen car as they drove past him with the top down on the following weekend.

Upon reflection, two things come to mind these decades later: (1) our hero put himself at some tactical (and legal) risk for nothing; and (2) it's a jungle out there, and it's a good idea to carry a gun if you know how to use it, when to use it, when not to, and how otherwise to avoid trouble.

I carry a gun and a cell phone and a pepper blaster. My objective is to protect myself (and family) should the need arise. I do not intend to try to apprehend or detain thieves. There's too much downside risk and no tangible upside, and I do not need to satisfy my ego by acting like a policeman.