You have the RIGHT...

[JohnKSa]

...to confront someone messing with your vehicle. But it might not be the best option.

A man noticed someone trying to steal his catalytic converter and went to see what was going on. Turned out there were 4 of them, at least one of them keeping watch. The vehicle owner was shot, but fortunately survived.



We tend to assume that because we have a firearm, we've covered the bases and that going out to check on things will be a safe option. Turns out that guns don't stop bullets, and what you don't see can hurt you a lot.

 

[Navy87Guy]

I think training not to react the wrong way to this kind of situation is just as important as training to react properly when use of deadly force is required. I suspect a lot of people have the “instinct” to confront suspects like this - but tactically it’s probably a bad move. First, you may be outnumbered and get shot - a gun isn’t necessarily an “equalizer” when it’s four on one. Second, you may force a relatively “safe” situation into a deadly encounter by upping the ante for the criminals. Clearly in this case, not getting caught was worth more than someone else’s life to these guys, but left alone they would have taken the converter and moved on.

I realize a lot of people don’t want to “cave” to criminals but this is a great lesson in what you need to consider before you decide to intervene as a non-LEO in the commission of a crime. My catalytic converter isn’t worth dying over.

 

[tactikel]

In your State do you have the right to use deadly force to protect property? Producing a weapon may provoke a gun fight. Firing at the robbers to protect property which may only cost your insurance deductible, may well cost you a trip to the station and legal fees in the 5 to 6 figure range.

 

[Kleanbore]

In your State do you have the right to use deadly force to protect property?

Only in one, and under very limited circumstances.

Producing a weapon may provoke a gun fight.

And result in charges, trial, and conviction.

Firing at the robbers to protect property which may only cost your insurance deductible, may well cost you a trip to the station and legal fees in the 5 to 6 figure range.

Insurance would not be involved. The result may be serious criminal penalties.

 

[JohnKSa]

The idea of choosing to confront someone messing with a vehicle is that you probably don't initially have the right to display or threaten with the gun. You can, of course, have it on your person and available, but you can't "lead" with the gun unless you see that they are armed and obviously committing a serious crime--in which case it would probably be a lot smarter to choose not to engage and risk the chance of death. That's the first half of the situation. We're not talking about deadly force at this point, we're talking about checking on your car.

If, once you are out there checking on things, THEY escalate to the point that justifies deadly force then it's just basic self-defense from there on out.

The point of the video is that you want to have a realistic understanding of what could happen before making the decision to step out the door--and how critically important it is to be sure you know what you're getting into.

 

[Tilos]

As I have posted in other "what-if/scenario" threads.
The Panic button on your key fob is an option in any situation at your residents.
That button can be pushed from inside the house, out of the dirtbag's view and the alarm will draw the attention of any others in the area.
The alarm sound may be enough to get the dirtbags to leave too.
jmo,
.

 

[film495]

taking photos and dialing 911 from a good distance is a solid option

 

[AJC1]

I think training not to react the wrong way to this kind of situation is just as important as training to react properly when use of deadly force is required. I suspect a lot of people have the “instinct” to confront suspects like this - but tactically it’s probably a bad move. First, you may be outnumbered and get shot - a gun isn’t necessarily an “equalizer” when it’s four on one. Second, you may force a relatively “safe” situation into a deadly encounter by upping the ante for the criminals. Clearly in this case, not getting caught was worth more than someone else’s life to these guys, but left alone they would have taken the converter and moved on.

I realize a lot of people don’t want to “cave” to criminals but this is a great lesson in what you need to consider before you decide to intervene as a non-LEO in the commission of a crime. My catalytic converter isn’t worth dying over.

It's only government property that nessitates the use of deadly force, personal property isn't the governments problem. If we accept theft as just part of life, is stealing even wrong. What is right and moral has been replace by what is legal, and in that scenario the thief has more rights to your property than you do.

 

[AJC1]

As I have posted in other "what-if/scenario" threads.
The Panic button on your key fob is an option in any situation at your residents.
That button can be pushed from inside the house, out of the dirtbag's view and the alarm will draw the attention of any others in the area.
The alarm sound may be enough to get the dirtbags to leave too.
jmo,
.

Again if we look at the legal , your action results in the thief injuring themselves with your car and on your property, legally your liable. The law can be really ugly with a lawyer intending to make money off you on the other side.

 

[Tilos]

Again if we look at the legal , your action results in the thief injuring themselves with your car and on your property, legally your liable. The law can be really ugly with a lawyer intending to make money off you on the other side.

Slow night for you???
Again, I could agree with you here but we'd both be wrong.

You are wasting your wisdom on me here.
I won't be responding to anymore quotes of my posts here, so take the last word if you feel the need.

.

 

[Kleanbore]

It's only government property that nessitates the use of deadly force, personal property isn't the governments problem. If we accept theft as just part of life, is stealing even wrong. What is right and moral has been replace by what is legal, and in that scenario the thief has more rights to your property than you do.

That's way off base.

 

[AJC1]

That's way off base.

Did you consider who was discussing this. Some of us had to memorize the definition of deadly force and the justifications. I don't expect those who haven't stood the watch to know.

 

[JohnKSa]

If we accept theft as just part of life, is stealing even wrong.

1. Whether we accept it or not, it absolutely is part of life.

2. Theft is wrong, it is immoral, it is illegal. That doesn't change the fact that you can get killed trying to protect your property.

What is right and moral has been replace by what is legal, and in that scenario the thief has more rights to your property than you do.

1. There's no implication anywhere in this thread that it is right, moral or legal for people to steal. The point is that confronting people over property can be dangerous. Something that a prudent person would want to think about before acting.

2. There's no implication anywhere in this thread that thieves have more rights to property than the actual owner. The point is that while a property owner certainly has the RIGHT to protect his property by confronting those who appear to be interfering with it, that doesn't mean it's always the smart thing to do.

Again if we look at the legal , your action results in the thief injuring themselves with your car and on your property, legally your liable.

It's conceivable, though unlikely, that a thief could sue for being injured while engaged in a theft. It has happened. HOWEVER, that's not the point. The point is that it is wise to consider options for discouraging/driving away a thief that don't place one in lethal danger.

 

[luzyfuerza]

As the OP demonstrates, leaving cover to dissuade clowns who are stealing something that belongs to you is very risky, whether you have a gun or not. Where police don't have the resources to track down the bad actors, and society refuses to hold them accountable even if the cops did find them, then taking pictures and being a good witness is futile. There is a third approach that is MUCH more effective, however.

Where I've lived and worked in Latin America, stuff that isn't behind a high wall with locked gates is pretty much assumed to be free for the taking. This ethos seems to have taken hold in some parts of America.

Latinos have learned to live with this mindset by putting their homes, businesses, and possessions behind high walls with locked gates. By putting sharp stuff on top of those walls and gates. By putting bars on their windows and strong locks on their doors. And steel roll-up doors in front of their businesses. This system works pretty well.

Taking a page from Latinos' approach to security might be a good idea in those parts of America where unsecured stuff tends to walk away: put yourself, your family, and your stuff behind barriers that effectively keep bad actors from gaining access. Be creative. Get some help and advice. Come up with barriers that work well for your home and situation, and put them in place.

I wish that this wasn't necessary. But the days of leaving keys in the ignition and front doors unlocked are long gone, and I don't think they're coming back.

 

[Phaedrus/69]

But the days of leaving keys in the ignition and front doors unlocked are long gone, and I don't think they're coming back.

Even "back in the day" that behavior was for fools. Locks date back around 6,000 years with maybe our oldest example being a 4,000 year old lock discovered in the ruins of Nineveh in ancient Assyria. "Leave it to Beaver" and "Andy Griffith" fantasies notwithstanding, in the actual real world this has been the case at least as long as fully modern humans have inhabited the world. Anyone that doesn't understand this is simply [willfully?] ignorant of history.

 

[FL-NC]

Only in one, and under very limited circumstances.
And result in charges, trial, and conviction.
Insurance would not be involved. The result may be serious criminal penalties.

 

[dweis]

I am not going to get shot over protecting property. I carry insurance on all my valuable property. I don’t carry life insurance.

 

[Shawn Dodson]

In your State do you have the right to use deadly force to protect property? Producing a weapon may provoke a gun fight. Firing at the robbers to protect property which may only cost your insurance deductible, may well cost you a trip to the station and legal fees in the 5 to 6 figure range.

You have the right to arm yourself for self-defense before attempting to prevent a property crime. In most cases, just establishing your presence is enough to drive off thieves. It's when a thief or thieves decide to assault you is when a property crime turns into a violent crime and you have the right to defend yourself.

However, it's all about safety, right? So, turning on an exterior light and/or using a verbal command is safer than going outside to confront brazen criminals.

 

[gwpercle]

I'm tired of people telling me I'm better off letting the bad guys rob me blind ... and it's safer for me to stay inside and NOT confront the bad guys .... when I hear this I think are the bad guy's paying you to post this nonsense . Tell who you work for if they come around stealing and breaking into my house ... they WILL be met with force ... 12 gauge and 41 Magnum Force .
I'm not falling for the bad guy needs to be allowed to win to make me safe ...no the bad guy isn't getting a pass at my house .
Gary

 

[Double Naught Spy]

Turned out there were 4 of them, at least one of them keeping watch.

One of the instructors I had for self defense years ago made a point over and over again that the fight you enter may not be the fight you expected, namely because there is a better than half chance that the perp has one or more buddies and/or that there are one or more that you don't see despite the fact that you see one or some...such as the person keep watch who may then become an active fighter against you.

Only in one, and under very limited circumstances.

That would be Texas. The circumstances are limited in scope, but broad in reality. You can use lethal force at night in defense of property basically if you are the owner or responsible for said property, you reasonably believe lethal force is immediately necessary to stop the commission of the crime, that you don't believe the property will otherwise by recoverable, and that using less force would pose additional risk to the defender

This does not mean that some idiot DA won't try to prosecute you, however. LOTS of property crime go on at night.

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.

 

[AJC1]

One of the instructors I had for self defense years ago made a point over and over again that the fight you enter may not be the fight you expected, namely because there is a better than half chance that the perp has one or more buddies and/or that there are one or more that you don't see despite the fact that you see one or some...such as the person keep watch who may then become an active fighter against you.



That would be Texas. The circumstances are limited in scope, but broad in reality. You can use lethal force at night in defense of property basically if you are the owner or responsible for said property, you reasonably believe lethal force is immediately necessary to stop the commission of the crime, that you don't believe the property will otherwise by recoverable, and that using less force would pose additional risk to the defender

This does not mean that some idiot DA won't try to prosecute you, however. LOTS of property crime go on at night.

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.

Of the places I lived, Texas was on one end of the spectrum and Connecticut on the other. Your state law definitely applies. In CT if someone breaks into your home, your required to retreat to your bedroom. I never looked up protection of property but I can't immage you have any rights to defend.

 

[Shawn Dodson]

I'm tired of people telling me I'm better off letting the bad guys rob me blind ... and it's safer for me to stay inside and NOT confront the bad guys .... when I hear this I think are the bad guy's paying you to post this nonsense . Tell who you work for if they come around stealing and breaking into my house ... they WILL be met with force ... 12 gauge and 41 Magnum Force .
I'm not falling for the bad guy needs to be allowed to win to make me safe ...no the bad guy isn't getting a pass at my house .
Gary

Then you should have a partner to provide armed overwatch as you confront a threat of unknown capacity. It's a concept referred to as "contact/cover". You can learn more here - https://www.virtra.com/contact-and-cover-why-its-important-blog/

 

[JohnKSa]

I'm tired of people telling me I'm better off letting the bad guys rob me blind ...

Well, it's certainly true that you are better off letting them steal (not rob) than getting shot or killed. Does that mean you shouldn't do anything at all? Of course not! But if your chosen course of action is to go confront someone stealing (not robbing) from you, then you'd better be ready to deal with the risk of them being prepared for just such a thing to happen.

and it's safer for me to stay inside and NOT confront the bad guys ....

There is absolutely no question about it--it is, without any doubt whatsoever, much safer. Leaving your house to confront a thief is certainly more risky than staying inside.

when I hear this I think are the bad guy's paying you to post this nonsense .

No one's paying anyone--of course. If you think it's nonsense, then perhaps you can explain how it's safer to go out and confront someone than it is to stay inside.

...if they come around stealing and breaking into my house ... they WILL be met with force ... 12 gauge and 41 Magnum Force . I'm not falling for the bad guy needs to be allowed to win to make me safe ...no the bad guy isn't getting a pass at my house .

1. Breaking into someone's house is hugely different from stealing from a car parked outside. Nothing on this thread is about dealing with someone breaking into occupied houses.

2. No one is saying the bad guy must be "allowed to win", just pointing out that some courses of action come with significant risk. Maybe some people don't care about that risk and then this thread won't mean anything to them. Some people might feel like taking the risk of dying to protect their car might not be worth it and they might look into other options for protecting their property.

 

[Kleanbore]

I'm tired of people telling me ... it's safer for me to stay inside and NOT confront the bad guys .... .. Tell who you work for if they come around stealing and breaking into my house ... they WILL be met with force

Staying inside implies that the issue is outside. 'breaking into' is something else.. Which is it?

learn the difference between stealing, robbery, and burglary.

 

[Elkins45]

I was expecting something much different when I saw the thread title. Specifically I was expecting the punchline to a Ron White joke. “I had the right to remain silent…but not the ability.”

Upon reflection it might still apply here just a bit.