Using Deadly Force

[onthejon55]

I know that my home state has some variation of the "castle doctrine" as law when it comes to defending ones property. I was wondering of anyone knew if that meant you had the right to protect your property if it was located on public land. for example what if someone carjacks me at gun point at a stoplight. since their gun is pointed at my head the entire time i don't have a chance to draw on them during the first part of the confrontation. but then after i get out and they prepare to make off with my vehicle do i have the right to gun them down even if they are no longer threatening me?

[10-96]

I don't know either the letter nor the spirit of your state's law, but I would have to opine that it would be a crap-shoot as far as your defense since you indicate that there is a decline in threat level. To, basically, react 'post crime' while the booger is departing in your car (and you are now out of immediate danger) would come real close to vigilante-ism... wouldn't it? In my state, a lot of weight is given to the 'Reasonable Person Rule' as in, "What would a reasonable person do?" Study your state's laws and better yet- refer to the instructors of your state's CCW programs, it doesn't cost anything and knowledge is your friend.

[Keltyke]

do i have the right to gun them down even if they are no longer threatening me?

caveat: Each state's law is different - check for YOUR state.

Although the "Castle Doctrine" usually extends to cars and motel rooms, you'd be hard-pressed to defend shooting a fleeing BG. For a CWP holder to shoot, there MUST be: opportunity, ability, and intent. Our state law says an "imminent fear of life or severe bodily injury." If a BG is running or driving away - unless they're shooting at you as they flee, you can't shoot.

That being said, one of our local sheriffs said, "If a person breaks into your home, you may assume they're there to harm you, not to just rob you - and you may act accordingly."

It's a fine line, and a good lawyer can wrangle "defense of property" into "defense of life". However, forensics can beat that. They'll KNOW if you shot the guy in the back as he was fleeing. Then you're up S*** ceek.

My advice? Let him go - property is not worth the hassle you'll be in. That's what you carry insurance forr.

[OldMarksman]

As Keltyke said, the law varies, check your state. Here's the relevant section of the Indiana code.

IC 35-41-3-2
Use of force to protect person or property
Sec. 2. (a) A person is justified in using reasonable force against another person to protect the person or a third person from what the person reasonably believes to be the imminent use of unlawful force. However, a person:
(1) is justified in using deadly force; and
(2) does not have a duty to retreat;
if the person reasonably believes that that force is necessary to prevent serious bodily injury to the person or a third person or the commission of a forcible felony. No person in this state shall be placed in legal jeopardy of any kind whatsoever for protecting the person or a third person by reasonable means necessary.
(b) A person:
(1) is justified in using reasonable force, including deadly force, against another person; and
(2) does not have a duty to retreat;
if the person reasonably believes that the force is necessary to[I] prevent or terminate the other person's unlawful entry of or attack on the person's dwelling, curtilage, or occupied motor vehicle.
(c) With respect to property other than a dwelling, curtilage, or an occupied motor vehicle, a person is justified in using reasonable force against another person if the person reasonably believes that the force is necessary to immediately prevent or terminate the other person's trespass on or criminal interference with property lawfully in the person's possession, lawfully in possession of a member of the person's immediate family, or belonging to a person whose property the person has authority to protect. However, a person:
(1) is justified in using deadly force; and
(2) does not have a duty to retreat;
only if that force is justified under subsection (a).

The emphasis is mine.

The way I read it, and this is a lay opinion, you may use deadly force only if the vehicle is occupied and you are trying to prevent entry or terminate an attack.

Do not rely on that as legal advice.

I know I sure wouldn't shoot, and I wouldn't want to have it put to the reasonable person test if I had done so.

[peetzakilla]

You are virtually never justified in firing at a fleeing suspect, even police don't shoot fleeing car thieves. There are exceptions in some states for shooting someone you have WITNESSED committing a violent felony (murder or rape), with the emphasis on violence having actually occurred. Even in castle doctrine states you can't just blast away at someone who is running away. For instance, you find someone inside your door and as you raise your gun they run outside. If you shoot now your probably going to jail.

[JasonG]

The time and expense of loosing a car and wallet pales compared to the legal fees and court time.
As someone better than me said "Your firearm is an emergency tool."
A lost car is not an emergency !

[OldMarksman]

The time and expense of loosing a car and wallet pales compared to the legal fees and court time.


Not to mention time served behind bars......

[Japle]

The only reason to shoot someone is because they’re doing something RIGHT THEN!! that can’t be tolerated. That generally means a violent felony.

Rape, assault, attempted murder, kidnapping all qualify. Running down your driveway with your TV doesn’t qualify. Looking through the window at your naked girlfriend doesn’t qualify.

Someone coming toward you in the dark inside your home qualifies in most states. Just hope it isn’t a drunk 16 year old who got lost and stumbled in through the front door you forgot to lock.

[M1911]

The time and expense of loosing a car and wallet pales compared to the legal fees and court time.+1

I've got $1000 deductible on my car. That would buy less than 4 hours of an attorney's time.

My gun is to protect me and mine. Stuff can be replaced.

[GPossenti]

Just make sure you shoot the carjacker while you're still in the car, and he's still trying to commit the crime.

[peetzakilla]

In the end, we all have to live by our own ethics.
Mine tell me that I won't kill someone unless it's unavoidable. I wouldn't shoot a car jacker after the fact unless he was shooting at me while he drove away. Just like I wouldn't shoot by default if someone was in my house even if the law said I could.

[Recon7]

You could
A call your insurance company, pay a deductable and some higher rates, or

B Have a blood splattered car that will be taken in as evidence, not be able to get anything from your insurance company to get a new car, lose your gun and probably ccw. oh, and the whole murder trial thing.

I'd call lojack on the dude instead, he won't even know what hit him when he gets pulled over for the felony stop:D

[David Armstrong]

but then after i get out and they prepare to make off with my vehicle do i have the right to gun them down even if they are no longer threatening me?
That depends on your state's laws. But even if you could, why would you? Just because you can doesn't mean you should.

[Stagger Lee]

And it's threads like this one that make me visit this and other boards less and less frequently. It always seems like somebody's posting about how badly they really want to shoot someone else, basically just to do it.

No wonder we haven't cleaned out all of the terrorists in Iraq yet. All of the wanna-be killers are still in the US posting on the internet. :rolleyes:


Fortunately this board does have a large number of sensible folks, and you can see that in this thread too. All hope is not lost. :cool:

[scoobydoo6906]

Stagger Lee there is no terrorists in Iraq FYI, just a religious civil war with our army in the middle. terrorists come for Saudi Arabia, and fill in the blank a-stan. however I agree with the rest of your statement. I generally do not read the tactics and training section of any forum because the posts are not about either tactics or training 90% of the time

[Sportdog]

I don't think that I would even think about shooting someone AFTER they carjacked me. I'm guessing that a lot of the reasons people have such a "want to shoot" attitude is frustration with the criminal justice system. I would be willing to bet the farm that most would not be inclined to shoot anyone unless they feared for their life or that of a loved one.....and from the way some talk, even that would not happen. It's easier and better for the board to let guys blow off a little steam then to get into what Capt. Charlie calls "a urination competition" (something that he accused me of):D

[kjones]

I'm guessing that a lot of the reasons people have such a "want to shoot" attitude is frustration with the criminal justice system.

Agree. It just seems that the criminal, no matter the crime, has more power over the victim. I do believe in innocent until proven guilty, but there's some cases that it sounds more like innocent until....ah forget it, he's innocent. Fair sentencing is also nonexistent. Maybe it's just me but I feel eye for an eye is applicable. Have I ever been in a situation where a loved one was victimized severely? No. Hopefully never will. I think victims and their families should have a say in the punishment of the criminal IF proven, beyond ANY doubt, guilty. As in 3 people saw it happen or else-wise. Kyle

[GPossenti]

Here's the problem with this thread (and many others like it).

The original question assumes the BG is only interested in taking your car, and that you know he only wants to take your car.

In a real life situation you may not know that's all the BG wants. You don't know what the BG is willing to do to you to take your car. You don't know if the BG is a case of road rage wanting to shoot you or beat you senseless. You don't know anything other than a guy is approaching your car with a gun. You won't know that he only wants your car until he drives off and leaves you behind. You can only assume he intends to hurt you.

What if your kids or your wife is in the car and he takes you out of the car?

I wouldn't shoot if the guy is driving off with my car, ESPECIALLY if I have family in the car. However, if he has a gun and he's getting into my car but hasn't driven off yet, and I'm able to access my gun, I might shoot him before he starts driving.

Things to think about:

1) You are always responsible for your bullets and their destruction. If you shoot at a moving vehicle, what else or whom else might you hit?

2) If the carjacker is struck with the bullet and unable to control the vehicle. You then have a deadly weapon out of control moving down the road. You may be responsible for the damage the vehicle causes.

[David Armstrong]

However, if he has a gun and he's getting into my car but hasn't driven off yet, and I'm able to access my gun, I might shoot him before he starts driving.
At which point I always have to ask "why?" What do you hope to achieve by this, other than getting even? You're still going to lose your car (police will impound it), perhaps for a longer time than jsut the carjack, and given that you have shot the guy, I doubt your insurance will cover the damage or pay for a rental car. Throw in the bills for the lawyer, time lost due to court and such, "why?"

[GPossenti]

I am inclined to shoot because an armed and dangerous person is on the loose who very well may hurt someone else.

A poster on another thread said he was confronted by a guy with a shotgun. He drew his pistol in response but never fired and the shotgun BG took off in his own vehicle. Later the shotgun BG murdered someone else.

I know we're not (or I'm not) talking about being LEOs, but if an attacker has a gun out, you can only assume he's means to hurt you. You aren't safe from him until the BG is gone. Just because he's now in the car doesn't mean you are out of danger. What if he intends to shoot the witness?

[peetzakilla]

The original question assumes the BG is only interested in taking your car, and that you know he only wants to take your car.

I take the questioning to mean that if the BG is no longer a threat can I still shoot him. If someone is doing anything to you at gunpoint you (mostly likely) have the right to shoot them.

Once they are driving away I think a reasonable person has to say "I guess he WAS just after the car."

[M1911]

I take the questioning to mean that if the BG is no longer a threat can I still shoot him. If someone is doing anything to you at gunpoint you (mostly likely) have the right to shoot them.

Once they are driving away I think a reasonable person has to say "I guess he WAS just after the car."
Agreed. If the guy is still a threat, then you can legally shoot him.

If the guy is driving away and is no longer a threat, why shoot?

[Hondo11]

At which point I always have to ask "why?" What do you hope to achieve by this, other than getting even? You're still going to lose your car (police will impound it), perhaps for a longer time than jsut the carjack, and given that you have shot the guy, I doubt your insurance will cover the damage or pay for a rental car. Throw in the bills for the lawyer, time lost due to court and such, "why?"



Because he is still in the commission of a violent felony against you, a person, and some people believe in using Deadly Force to prevent that from happening to them.

Let's use your logic. You come home and a man is raping your wife. I guess you could not use Deadly Force because, hey, he's already raped her and she can't be unraped. You have nothing to gain other than getting even, right? And if you shoot him instead of letting him finish raping her, then you'll just have attorney's fees, time lost due to court, etc. You should not interfere and just let him finish, then shoo him away and let the police catch him later.

Carjacking is NOT a property crime, no matter how anyone tries to spin it. It's Robbery (in this case, Aggravated Robbery because of the gun), which is a crime against a person...the same as Sexual Assault, Murder, etc. And a completely different animal than Car Theft, which is a property crime.

Disclaimer- ***I am not saying if he's already taken your car and is driving away, then you should start shooting. GP said if the guy had a gun and was still getting into his car, then he MIGHT shoot.

[M1911]

Sorry, Hondo, but your example is entirely unrelated.

Yes, if someone is pointing a gun at me, whether he wants my wallet, car, or to kill me, I am in immediate danger of death or grave bodily injury. I am fully within my rights to resist using lethal force. Once that threat is over, in most states I can no longer use deadly force.

From a practical standpoint, if the guy is still getting into my car, but his gun is no longer pointed at me, I'm running for cover. If the guy is getting into my car but his gun is still pointed at me, I have the choice of doing nothing (and hoping he doesn't kill me), drawing against an already drawn gun (and hoping I beat his shot), or running away.

Btw, many states consider rape to be grave bodily injury, and the use of deadly force is justified to stop it. Besides, rape is generally done with the expressed or implied threat of death or grave bodily injury.

[peetzakilla]

Carjacking is NOT a property crime, no matter how anyone tries to spin it. It's Robbery (in this case, Aggravated Robbery because of the gun), which is a crime against a person...the same as Sexual Assault, Murder, etc. And a completely different animal than Car Theft, which is a property crime.

Disclaimer- ***I am not saying if he's already taken your car and is driving away, then you should start shooting. GP said if the guy had a gun and was still getting into his car, then he MIGHT shoot.


MMMmmm, maybe. In most places you'd have to show that you considered yourself to be in imminent danger of death or grievous injury. The "type" of crime doesn't matter per say, so much as were you in immediate danger of death or life-threatening injury. Sure, with some crimes risk of death or injury is implied in the event but I don't think you'd win a case saying a car jacker was going to kill you simply because stealing your car is an indication your about to be killed. As I said above, gun pointed in your direction, your probably clear to shoot, otherwise it's going to be a tough case.

[Hondo11]

MMMmmm, maybe. In most places you'd have to show that you considered yourself to be in imminent danger of death or grievous injury. The guy with the gun committing Aggravated Robbery is a good indication that you are just that. The "type" of crime doesn't matter per say, so much as were you in immediate danger of death or life-threatening injury. Yes, it does. Crimes Against Persons are more closely tied to Self Defense and Use of Force. Some Property Crimes are also related, but Theft and Robbery are not the same thing at all. Sure, with some crimes risk of death or injury is implied in the event The guy with the gun sort of implies it in this case but I don't think you'd win a case saying a car jacker was going to kill you You don't have to know what he was going to do, only what he was doing that placed you in fear of...and again, the gun and his commission of Aggravated Robbery with you as the victim kind of makes the case... simply because stealing your car is an indication your about to be killed. As I said above, gun pointed in your direction, your probably clear to shoot, otherwise it's going to be a tough case. So, I could just walk up to you with my gun pointed at the ground and say "I'm going to kill you", but unless it's pointed 'in your direction', then you can't defend yourself?

You should better inform yourself. Here are some definitions from the Texas Penal Code (most states are similar)...I'll highlight the parts you might focus on.

(17) "Deadly weapon" means:
(A) a firearm or anything manifestly designed,
made, or adapted for the purpose of inflicting death or serious
bodily injury; or
(B) anything that in the manner of its use or
intended use is capable of causing death or serious bodily injury.

(3) "Deadly force" means force that is intended or
known by the actor to cause, or in the manner of its use or intended
use is capable of causing, death or serious bodily injury.

§ 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.
(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
(5) if the actor sought an explanation from or
discussion with the other person concerning the actor's differences
with the other person while the actor was:
(A) carrying a weapon in violation of Section
46.02; or
(B) possessing or transporting a weapon in
violation of Section 46.05.
(c) The use of force to resist an arrest or search is
justified:
(1) if, before the actor offers any resistance, the
peace officer (or person acting at his direction) uses or attempts
to use greater force than necessary to make the arrest or search;
and
(2) when and to the degree the actor reasonably
believes the force is immediately necessary to protect himself
against the peace officer's (or other person's) use or attempted use
of greater force than necessary.
(d) The use of deadly force is not justified under this
subchapter except as provided in Sections 9.32, 9.33, and 9.34.
(e) A person who has a right to be present at the location
where the force is used, who has not provoked the person against
whom the force is used, and who is not engaged in criminal activity
at the time the force is used is not required to retreat before
using force as described by this section.
(f) For purposes of Subsection (a), in determining whether
an actor described by Subsection (e) reasonably believed that the
use of force was necessary, a finder of fact may not consider
whether the actor failed to retreat.

§ 9.32. DEADLY FORCE IN DEFENSE OF PERSON. (a) A person
is justified in using deadly force against another:
(1) if the actor would be justified in using force
against the other under Section 9.31; and
(2) when and to the degree the actor reasonably
believes the deadly force is immediately necessary:
(A) to protect the actor against the other's use
or attempted use of unlawful deadly force; or
(B) to prevent the other's imminent commission of
aggravated kidnapping, murder, sexual assault, aggravated sexual
assault, robbery, or aggravated robbery.
(b) The actor's belief under Subsection (a)(2) that the
deadly force was immediately necessary as described by that
subdivision is presumed to be reasonable if the actor:
(1) knew or had reason to believe that the person
against whom the deadly 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 an
offense described by Subsection (a)(2)(B);
(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.
(c) A person who has a right to be present at the location
where the deadly force is used, who has not provoked the person
against whom the deadly force is used, and who is not engaged in
criminal activity at the time the deadly force is used is not
required to retreat before using deadly force as described by this
section.
(d) For purposes of Subsection (a)(2), in determining
whether an actor described by Subsection (c) reasonably believed
that the use of deadly force was necessary, a finder of fact may not
consider whether the actor failed to retreat.

Acts 1973, 63rd Leg., p. 883, ch. 399, § 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1974.
Amended by Acts 1983, 68th Leg., p. 5316, ch. 977, § 5, eff.
Sept. 1, 1983; Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 900, § 1.01, eff. Sept.
1, 1994; Acts 1995, 74th Leg., ch. 235, § 1, eff. Sept. 1, 1995.

Amended by:
Acts 2007, 80th Leg., R.S., Ch. 1, § 3, eff. September 1,
2007.

§ 29.02. ROBBERY. (a) A person commits an offense if,
in the course of committing theft as defined in Chapter 31 and with
intent to obtain or maintain control of the property, he:
(1) intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly causes
bodily injury to another; or
(2) intentionally or knowingly threatens or places
another in fear of imminent bodily injury or death.
(b) An offense under this section is a felony of the second
degree.

Acts 1973, 63rd Leg., p. 883, ch. 399, § 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1974.
Amended by Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 900, § 1.01, eff. Sept. 1,
1994.


§ 29.03. AGGRAVATED ROBBERY. (a) A person commits an
offense if he commits robbery as defined in Section 29.02, and he:
(1) causes serious bodily injury to another;
(2) uses or exhibits a deadly weapon; or
(3) causes bodily injury to another person or
threatens or places another person in fear of imminent bodily
injury or death, if the other person is:
(A) 65 years of age or older; or
(B) a disabled person.
(b) An offense under this section is a felony of the first
degree.
(c) In this section, "disabled person" means an individual
with a mental, physical, or developmental disability who is
substantially unable to protect himself from harm.

[peetzakilla]

1) I'm not in Texas

2) I know my states law.

3) If they are in the act of X and pointing a gun at you SHOOT THEM. If they are driving away and you shoot them, YOU go to jail -- in NY state. Texas is, no offense, irrelevant to me -- especially since the OP is in Indiana.

4) It's about more than "the law" it's about basic moral code. I'm not telling you what your code should be, I'm telling you what mine IS. IF a crime is OVER, any crime, I will not kill the perp unless they: have killed someone in my sight (or I know beyond ANY doubt that they have) or are attempting to commit further crime that warrants shooting.


You MUST have reason to believe you are about to die or be harmed to near death or that someone else is. You shoot for any other reason YOU go to jail. Even the castle doctrine doesn't negate that simple fact, it simply states that you can ASSUME grave danger. There is no implication that the grave danger does not exist.

So, I could just walk up to you with my gun pointed at the ground and say "I'm going to kill you", but unless it's pointed 'in your direction', then you can't defend yourself?

That's just silly. My meaning in context is clear.

[Hondo11]

Sorry, Hondo, but your example is entirely unrelated. You didn't comprehend what you read. Read the comment that I was addressing, then read my response in that context.

Yes, if someone is pointing a gun at me, whether he wants my wallet, car, or to kill me, I am in immediate danger of death or grave bodily injury. I am fully within my rights to resist using lethal force. Once that threat is over, in most states I can no longer use deadly force. The comment I was addressing suggested that the badguy was still in the commission of the Aggravated Robbery, not fleeing...so the threat was not over.

From a practical standpoint, if the guy is still getting into my car, but his gun is no longer pointed at me, I'm running for cover. If the guy is getting into my car but his gun is still pointed at me, I have the choice of doing nothing (and hoping he doesn't kill me), drawing against an already drawn gun (and hoping I beat his shot), or running away. I didn't say anything about the practical standpoint. The comment I addressed questioned why you'd defend yourself...and not after the guy was driving away, but while he was still in the act of robbing you at gunpoint.

Btw, many states consider rape to be grave bodily injury, and the use of deadly force is justified to stop it. Besides, rape is generally done with the expressed or implied threat of death or grave bodily injury. Aggravated Robbery (or whatever your state titles it) is also done with the expressed or implied threat of death or serious bodily injury (the display of a deadly weapon.

The actual offense committed (the title of it) isn't relevant to the logic that was used. If you are (or a third party) in imminent danger of death or serious bodily injury, you can defend yourself (or them). It doesn't matter whether it's your wife's virtue or it a guy pointing a gun at you and ordering you to get out of your car. They are both justification for the use of Deadly Force and the fact that the written law gives you justification takes care of the actual or threat of danger. For instance, the statute I posted previously gives justification for the use of Deadly Force to prevent the imminent commission of several things. That implies that if one of those things is happening to you, then you are in danger. You just have to articulate YOUR specific situation.

[Hondo11]

1) I'm not in Texas

2) I know my states law.

3) If they are in the act of X and pointing a gun at you SHOOT THEM. If they are driving away and you shoot them, YOU go to jail -- in NY state. Texas is, no offense, irrelevant to me -- especially since the OP is in Indiana.

You didn't read all of my post then. I specifically said that I wasn't advocating shooting if the guy's driving away. In fact, I never advocated taking any specific course of action. What I did was answer the question that was asked re: why you would shoot someone who's still in the act of committing Aggravated Robbery against you... I didn't say you should, ought to, etc. The question was asked "Why would you?" and I offered a reason why one might. And the scenario that prompted the "why" question stated that the guy was still getting into the car...NOT driving away. Your arguing something that wasn't said.

4) It's about more than "the law" it's about basic moral code. I'm not telling you what your code should be, I'm telling you what mine IS. IF a crime is OVER, any crime, I will not kill the perp unless they: have killed someone in my sight (or I know beyond ANY doubt that they have) or are attempting to commit further crime that warrants shooting.


You MUST have reason to believe you are about to die or be harmed to near death or that someone else is. You shoot for any other reason YOU go to jail. Even the castle doctrine doesn't negate that simple fact, it simply states that you can ASSUME grave danger. There is no implication that the grave danger does not exist.


Quote:
So, I could just walk up to you with my gun pointed at the ground and say "I'm going to kill you", but unless it's pointed 'in your direction', then you can't defend yourself?

That's just silly. My meaning in context is clear.

Here's the part of my post you missed:

Disclaimer- ***I am not saying if he's already taken your car and is driving away, then you should start shooting. GP said if the guy had a gun and was still getting into his car, then he MIGHT shoot.

[David Armstrong]

I am inclined to shoot because an armed and dangerous person is on the loose who very well may hurt someone else.
I note that you are in Louisiana. In LA, that is not a valid reason or approved justification for shooting someone.
but if an attacker has a gun out, you can only assume he's means to hurt you.
Actually, that is a rather poor assumption.
Just because he's now in the car doesn't mean you are out of danger. What if he intends to shoot the witness?
It's a pretty good bet that if he wantged to shoot the witnesses he would have done it long before this point.

[peetzakilla]

Disclaimer- ***I am not saying if he's already taken your car and is driving away, then you should start shooting. GP said if the guy had a gun and was still getting into his car, then he MIGHT shoot.

I did read that part but, since it didn't conflict with my statements at all, I was confused as to why the entire rest of your post seemed to indicate that I was in error.

If you feel you are in danger of death or grievous bodily harm you may pull the trigger. That was and is my only point. One you seem to agree with but at the same time seem to take exception to my explanation of said point. So you'll have to:
1) Excuse my confusion
2) Excuse me from this discussion.

[David Armstrong]

Because he is still in the commission of a violent felony against you, a person, and some people believe in using Deadly Force to prevent that from happening to them.
It's already happened to you. That is the situation given by the OP: "...do i have the right to gun them down even if they are no longer threatening me?" Do you try to make it better or worse? If you start shooting you place yourself in danger, create a greater chance of losing the car in a non-insurable situation, cost yourself additional legal fees, and so on.
You come home and a man is raping your wife. I guess you could not use Deadly Force because, hey, he's already raped her and she can't be unraped.
I have never seen that as a condition for using deadly force or not, nor does it make much sense.
You have nothing to gain other than getting even, right?
Huh??? There is no getting even consideration at all. The BG is in the commission of a violent personal felony. Letting him continue has a high probability of further danger to the wife, not less.
And if you shoot him instead of letting him finish raping her, then you'll just have attorney's fees, time lost due to court, etc.
Which is probably a fairly good use of resources. I will assume your wife is worth more than the deductible your car has.
You should not interfere and just let him finish, then shoo him away and let the police catch him later.
Again, why? How does letting him finish and then shooing him away provide the greatest chance for you minimize loss of resources? You seem to be equating a rape in progress with a carjacking that pretty much concluded. I see quite a difference there. In one instance, there is still a grave danger to the person. In the other, there isn't. Let's remember the original question: "...do i have the right to gun them down even if they are no longer threatening me?" If they are no longer threatening is quite a bit different than they are in the process of an attack.

[Hondo11]

Peetzakilla,

I guess your inital reply threw me off. You mentioned that one would have to show they were in danger of serious injury or death. I think the danger is pretty clear, considering the scenario was that a guy was committing Aggravated Robbery (display and/or use of a deadly weapon during the commission of Robbery). So...I guess we actually agree??? :D


I only made the Crime Against a Person vs. Property Crime to distuingish the difference between someone stealing your car and someone robbing you of your car at gunpoint...which are two different things altogether. You'd be more apt to use Deadly Force to prevent the Aggravated Robbery than you would the "Car Theft" (which is a property crime...although in some states you can use deadly force to prevent just that.) Some people get "car theft" and "carjacking" confused.

Maybe I am completely missing your point (entirely possible) and it is not my intent to be argumentative. Feel free to call me on it if I ever come across that way.

[Hondo11]

It's already happened to you. Do you try to make it better or worse? If you start shooting you place yourself in danger, create a greater chance of losing the car in a non-insurable situation, cost yourself additional legal fees, and so on.

The post that you replied to with the "why?" question specifically stated that it was NOT over. He stated that the guy was STILL getting into your car. I don't see that as being over by any stretch.

I have never seen that as a condition for using deadly force or not, nor does it make much sense.

It was addressing your logic of "why would you?". You stated that hey, the guy's pretty much going to get your car...you're already going to be out the vehicle, so why cost yourself attorney's fees, time lost for court, etc? So... Your wife's already been violated, so why add to it with a dead guy to clean up, attorney costs, time lost for court, etc?

The answer is the same in both cases. Because the guy is committing a violent felony, RIGHT THEN, to you (or in the other case, your wife)...so you use whatever force you need to use to prevent/stop it. (Or not...personal choice. I NEVER advocated one course of action over another. I simply addressed your implication that a person shouldn't use force to stop it...which is what you implied with your "why would you" post and all the other threads where you've advocated compliance.)

Huh??? There is no getting even consideration at all. The BG is in the commission of a violent personal felony. Letting him continue has a high probability of further danger to the wife, not less.

In the carjacking case, the badguy is in the commission of a violent personal felony as well. Agg Robbery (the carjacking) is NOT a property crime...it's a Crime Against a Person. In your words, letting him continue has a high probability of further danger to you, not less. Stopping something sooner is better than stopping it later. Of course, nobody knows whether the continuation of EITHER case would result in a higher probability of further danger because nobody but the badguy (and sometimes not even he/she) knows what the ultimate goal is, what the next step is, what's going to happen next, etc.

Which is probably a fairly good use of resources. I will assume your wife is worth more than the deductible your car has.

Stopping someone from committing a "violent personal felony" against ME is a good use of resources too. The car doesn't play into it at all. It's not about the car, it's about the fact that you are being robbed at gunpoint. The car isn't in danger, YOU are.

Again, why? How does letting him finish and then shooing him away provide the greatest chance for you minimize loss of resources? You seem to be equating a rape in progress with a carjacking that pretty much concluded. I see quite a difference there. In one instance, there is still a grave danger to the person. In the other, there isn't.

Given that the post we're talking about specifies that the carjacking is NOT over, no I am not comparing an "in progress" anything to a carjacking that's "pretty much over". I'm comparing two things:

1. A violent act against a person by another, which places the victim in danger of serious bodily injury or death

and

2. A violent act against a person by another, which places the victim in danger of serious bodily injury or death


Letting them go wasn't my idea. It was what YOU implied in your "why would you" post. I referred to it in the rape scenario to show how simple the answer to your "why would you" question really is. The answer is "to stop them from committing a violent act against me...an act which places me in fear of injury or death."

[David Armstrong]

The post that you replied to with the "why?" question specifically stated that it was NOT over. He stated that the guy was STILL getting into your car. I don't see that as being over by any stretch.
"However, if he has a gun and he's getting into my car but hasn't driven off yet, and I'm able to access my gun, I might shoot him before he starts driving. "
Sure sounds over to me. The BG is getting into the car, he's no longer messing with you. No apparent threat, we're just shooting him so he can't drive off.
You stated that hey, the guy's pretty much going to get your car...you're already going to be out the vehicle, so why cost yourself attorney's fees, time lost for court, etc? So... Your wife's already been violated, so why add to it with a dead guy to clean up, attorney costs, time lost for court, etc?
As mentioned, you seem unable to understand the difference in potential loss of resources limited to your car insurance deductible and an attack in progress that threatens grave injury. That may be why you seem to be having trouble with this idea.
In the carjacking case, the badguy is in the commission of a violent personal felony as well.
But he has completed his act and is leaving the scene and is no longer a threat to you. Quite different from being actually engaged in a life-threatening action, as pointed out earlier.
In your words, letting him continue has a high probability of further danger to you, not less.
Sorry, but letting the BG drive away in your car does not give a high probability of danger to you. In fact, as he drives off, the danger goes down significantly. While certainly a violent personal crime, carjacking rarely results in serious injury.
Stopping someone from committing a "violent personal felony" against ME is a good use of resources too. The car doesn't play into it at all. It's not about the car, it's about the fact that you are being robbed at gunpoint. The car isn't in danger, YOU are.
Of course the car plays into it, it is a carjacking. And you are no longer in danger: ""...do i have the right to gun them down even if they are no longer threatening me?" The scenario itself indicates no threat. If you want to do a different scenario please post it and we can discuss it, but this situation is based on a crime that is pretty much over with and there is no longer a threat to you.
Given that the post we're talking about specifies that the carjacking is NOT over
But the threat to you is over. That is the scenario.
I'm comparing two things:
But the two are not the same, although you claim they are. One is an almost completed carjacking, with the goal being to get in the car and leave. The other is a rape in progress, a violent personal attack with a high danger of grave injury. They are very different.
Letting them go wasn't my idea.
Letting them finish and then shooing them away certainly was your idea. In the original scenario they are already finished with you and are in the process of leaving. In the rape scenario they are in the process of putting someone's life in immediate danger during the commission of the crime. In one instance, violent force minimizes your probable loss, in the other is maximizes it.

[peetzakilla]

Now you'll have to let me back in...;)

So...I guess we actually agree???

I think so.



...and it is not my intent to be argumentative. Feel free to call me on it if I ever come across that way.

Forgive me if my response seemed overly aggressive. I find myself expecting people to post things just to create arguments...

There are those around.;)

[Hondo11]

David,

You actually quoted the post that I referred to, which said "...getting into your car..." and used that to argue that it's "over". Getting means he is still doing it. I don't see how that's not obvious to a PhD. Yet, you still refer to it as over. I can only assume that you'd argue with a fence post until it saw things your way, so I'll pass on being the fence post.

Until he has already driven off, I would consider a guy with a gun who's in the commission of Aggravated Robbery (with a deadly weapon) a threat. You might not, but that's certainly your prerogative.

The original post contained the following:

"...do i have the right to gun them down even if they are no longer threatening me?"

In this case, I don't disagree with you. Once they are no longer directly threatening you with the deadly weapon, then your course of action will probably change. No argument here. (Although, in some states, you can still use Deadly Force in the defense of the property...if you choose to...not that I'm saying that's the proper option...just that it still might be one, legally speaking.)

As for the rest, I'm finished discussing it with you. It's obvious we come from two different worlds and see things from two different perspectives. We'll just leave it at that.

[Nnobby45]

caveat: Each state's law is different - check for YOUR state.


Let us not forget that a county DA will likely determine whether you violated the law and his/her decision may be influenced by politics. I live in a county with a DA that strongly supports citizens right to SD. He despises criminals as much as I do.

You may live in a county where the DA is the opposite and the rights of the criminal are sacred.

[Nnobby45]

Say, Hondo. Bold red type isn't necessary.

Aside from being a touch on the rude side, it's not so easy on the eyes for some of us old geezers. Perhaps you'll reconsider and make your point like the rest of us. Thanks, Nolan ;)

[computerguysd]

If you shoot somebody, particularly if you shoot and kill them, you're going to go to trial. Even DAs that support gun owners rights will charge you as CYA. 12 people will ultimately determine if the shooting was justified and the odds are that if they feel you shot someone who was NO LONGER a threat to you, you'll be going to jail. Maybe they won't, but it's not a risk I'd be willing to take.

FWIW, the local NRA Instructor uses this example in his self defense course and is very explicit that if the BG is no longer a direct threat, expect to be prosecuted and probably convicted.

In the scenario where an innocent passenger is still in the car and the BG is driving away with them, you're justified in shooting because the passenger is still directly threatened by an armed criminal who is kidnapping them.

[roach4047]

Make sure you put your bullets through the front wind shield so that you're able to convince the jury that your life was in jeapordy as the thug was attempting to run over you. If that doesn't convince them nothing will.

Roach

[Hondo11]

Say, Hondo. Bold red type isn't necessary.

Aside from being a touch on the rude side, it's not so easy on the eyes for some of us old geezers. Perhaps you'll reconsider and make your point like the rest of us. Thanks, Nolan

I used red type to differentiate my text from the black text, so I could insert my reply directly under the comment. My apologies if it was hard to read.

[Japle]

If you shoot somebody, particularly if you shoot and kill them, you're going to go to trial.

Not in Florida.
Justified self-defense shootings usually don't even get to the charges-filed stage.

[fiddletown]

...Justified self-defense shootings usually don't even get to the charges-filed stage.
Who decides if it's justified. The DA doesn't have to take your word for it. When it's clearly justified and everyone agrees, there's no problem; and you get to go home. But real life isn't always so neat and clean, and sometimes there's disagreement about whether or not the shooting was justified. And then there's a trial.

[David Armstrong]

You actually quoted the post that I referred to, which said "...getting into your car..." and used that to argue that it's "over".
Yes, I did. Let's look at what was said:
"However, if he has a gun and he's getting into my car but hasn't driven off yet, and I'm able to access my gun, I might shoot him before he starts driving. "
Looks pretty over to me. The BG is done with you, he is getting in the car, and he is going to drive off.
Getting means he is still doing it
I'm going to suggest that using tthat reasoning, if the BG is driving the car down the freeway 2 hours after leaving you behind, he is still doing it.
Until he has already driven off, I would consider a guy with a gun who's in the commission of Aggravated Robbery (with a deadly weapon) a threat.
I would consider a guy who is trying to get in a car and drive off not much of a threat. Further, I think you'd have a hard time justifying the use of deadly force at this point in any jurisdiction that uses the reasonableness standard for response or the imminent danger restriction. It is no different than the BG who has robbed your store and is now running away.

[onthejon55]

i love you guys! so much useful info thank you very much!

[vytoland]

once the BG has taken your car and drives off, the danger to you as ended. use of deadly force is not warrented. put your gun away and call your insurance company

[finity]

(b) A person:
(1) is justified in using reasonable force, including deadly force, against another person; and
(2) does not have a duty to retreat;
[i]if the person reasonably believes that the force is necessary to prevent or terminate the other person's unlawful entry of or attack on the person's dwelling, curtilage, or occupied motor vehicle.

Interestingly, in Indiana, the justification to use deadly force doesn't even require the BG to have a weapon in the case of an "occupied motor vehicle" (or house or property around your house). If they won't stop, you do what you have to do. The statute doesn't even require the standard "in fear of great bodily harm"; The act of the carjacking (or home invasion) itself is presumed to involve that threat at a minimum.

I guess you could argue when to call the situation "over" but the statute doesn't just say "prevent" it also says "terminate".

Going back to the rape scenario:

No one is going to argue that a rape-in-progress doesn't deserve action. OTOH, if the guy is already long gone then most understand you can't run them down & kill them.

But what about the instant the guy finishes the deed & implies he is leaving? Do you advocate that he should be just let go? (The rape is over.) The woman &/or her defender should just cower in the corner hoping he really does leave? What if he just stands in the room without a weapon in hand....then you should just do nothing? (No threat there.) What if there never was a weapon other that his superior strength? (Ahh, just do what he says & let him go. The cops will find him. :barf:)

You say that the chance of a carjacking turning deadly is pretty slim. What are the comparable statistics on a rape when the woman fully complies?

since their gun is pointed at my head the entire time i don't have a chance to draw on them during the first part of the confrontation. but then after i get out and they prepare to make off with my vehicle do i have the right to gun them down even if they are no longer threatening me?

If the BG has gotten to the point that he has driven a reasonable distance away & there is no other implied threat then, yeah, a reasonable person could conclude you are not in further danger & a SD claim probably wouldn't fly.

But if you are on the ground & the BG is "preparing to make off with" your vehicle, you could reasonably believe the crime is still in progress & can still be legally terminated (just like the man who hasn't left yet but has finished actively raping your wife). You really don't know what the BG is going to do at that point.

If I had the chance i'd shoot him to the ground. I don't want to be a statistic.

Yes I know that sometimes the GG loses but so does the BG. It's really difficult to respond to an unexpected attack (or in this case a counter-attack) so your odds of success go up if you are stealthy & determined to do them in. If you don't know yet what the "OODA loop" is, you might want to look it up.

[OldMarksman]

From finity: I guess you could argue when to call the situation "over" but the statute doesn't just say "prevent" it also says "terminate".

It reads "[terminate] the other person's unlawful entry ...of the person's ... occupied motor vehicle."

if you are on the ground & the BG is "preparing to make off with" your vehicle

If you are on the ground the vehicle is not occupied. Don't shoot.

Read under Defense of Property:http://www.useofforce.us/4details/

If I had the chance i'd shoot him to the ground. I don't want to be a statistic.

I think you would be a statistic.

[OldMarksman]

From GPossenti: I am inclined to shoot because an armed and dangerous person is on the loose who very well may hurt someone else.


"May well hurt someone else"? Do you seriously think you could even begin to present a case of defense of justifiability? Not even a policemen would try that.

The requirement is reasonable fear of imminent danger. Not potential danger, either to yourself or to someone else.

[GPossenti]

If you read the entire thread, you will see that it was a response and amendment to another statement and other circumstances. I certainly wouldn't shoot if the guy was actually driving. The situation that I outlined was that he was still getting in the car (as in door or window still open, car in park, not in drive, BG gun out and ready to use.)

So taken by itself, it reads that I am willing to shoot a BG driving away. In context with the rest of my messages, that is not at all the case.

[David Armstrong]

Do you advocate that he should be just let go?
No. I also don't advocate shooting him in violation of the law.
The woman &/or her defender should just cower in the corner hoping he really does leave?
Don't see why they would do that, or where anyone has suggested anybody cower and hope for anything.
What if he just stands in the room without a weapon in hand....then you should just do nothing? (No threat there.)
You sure shouldn't try to kill him in violation of the law. Lots of things you can do. FWIW, in my state if he fails to leave he is considered a threat. But again, if no threat why shoot him, other than for revenge?
You say that the chance of a carjacking turning deadly is pretty slim. What are the comparable statistics on a rape when the woman fully complies?
They are still pretty slim. For example, in 2002 total there were around 95,000 rapes and 43 of them resulted in death according to the UCR.
If I had the chance i'd shoot him to the ground. I don't want to be a statistic.
What makes you think that starting a gunfight will lessen your chances of being a statistic?

[OldMarksman]

I read the entire thread.

From GPossenti: I certainly wouldn't shoot if the guy was actually driving. The situation that I outlined was that he was still getting in the car (as in door or window still open, car in park, not in drive, BG gun out and ready to use.)

I'm afraid you have missed the point. If you are no longer in the car ("on the ground", you said), the castle doctrine law does not apply, because you are no longer in a position to terminate the person's unlawful entry into your occupied motor vehicle, as you are no longer occupying it. (Lay opinion)

And if he is getting into the car ("preparing to make off with your vehicle"), what he is now doing is stealing your car, and I think you would very unlikely to successfully make a convincing case that at the time you were in imminent danger. The OP said "they are no longer threatening me."

I believe it likely (lay opinion, again) that one who did choose to "shoot him to the ground" would likely add to several statistics: persons charged with murder, persons tried, persons convicted, and persons incarcerated.

Now, in Texas, I understand that you would be allowed to use deadly force if necessary to prevent the theft of your car within the period from thirty minutes after sunset to thirty minutes before sundown (lay opinion). However, the OP is in Indiana.

But even in Texas, I wouldn't shoot unless I would otherwise be put at serous personal risk because the incident occurred in the middle of nowhere and I couldn't use a cell phone. First, I don't think it would be the right thing to do, and second, it would just not be worth it.

[brickeyee]

I know that my home state has some variation of the "castle doctrine" as law when it comes to defending ones property.


Most of the 'castle doctrine' laws do NOT allow for "defending ones property", but protection of LIFE.

They allow the use of deadly force in the 'castle' when threatened.
Many go on to define when someone has entered that there is a presumption of deadly force, allowing you to respond with deadly force.

[GPossenti]

Thanks OldMarksman.

As much as I want to think I know it all, your examples have given me a different perspective.

Thank God for TFL

[OldMarksman]

GPossenti, I really appreciate your note, and I'm glad you have found my comments helpful.

Often, it seems, people simply seem to want to prevail in arguments. Your reply says a lot about you.

There are some great people on the is forum, staff and members.

By the way, I don't know it all, and I know it. One thing I do know is that I should not read the law and believe I understand the full meaning. I've worked with attorneys a lot over the years, and one thing I learned was my limitations. Another is that I do not want to get involved in a trial!

[finity]

No. I also don't advocate shooting him in violation of the law.

That question was in the context of "you just walk in & find a man is just finishing raping your wife or you have just been raped & the BG indicates he may be leaving" & you say don't shoot in violation of the law! What law is that exactly?

Don't see why they would do that, or where anyone has suggested anybody cower and hope for anything.

Well what exactly do you suggest in that situation? Take a stand & make a statement about something you would do instead of telling others what they shouldn't do. Compliance is "cowering & hoping".

You sure shouldn't try to kill him in violation of the law. Lots of things you can do. FWIW, in my state if he fails to leave he is considered a threat. But again, if no threat why shoot him, other than for revenge?

So your wife (or yourself) was just raped, the guy is still in the room & you say there are lots of things you can do besides using deadly force against him? Invite him to stay for tea & crumpets maybe? I, in no way (unless you aren't really a human) can believe you could be in that situation (castle doctrine or not) & calmly ask the guy to sit & wait for the cops to arrive or ask him to leave.

Also what do you think the purpose of the death penalty is if not revenge by society & a possible deterrence to others (not that it really does much in that regard)? The death row inmate is not an imminent threat to anybody, why kill him?

They are still pretty slim. For example, in 2002 total there were around 95,000 rapes and 43 of them resulted in death according to the UCR.

OK women, you heard the man. Just let the rapist have his way with you & you will probably be OK. Nevermind the aftermath of dealing with the rape for the rest of your life. If the guy doesn't get caught, you are always in fear that he will come back for some more. He already knows you won't resist (oh & don't fight back the next time either, you'll be OK). The pregnancy that could result is not a problem either. It's you who will have to decide whether to have an abortion or carry your rapists baby for 9 months. I also hear they can do amazing things with AIDS now days. Yeah, just comply. Statistically, you'll be fine.

What makes you think that starting a gunfight will lessen your chances of being a statistic?

I didn't start it.:confused:

Why do you bother to even own any weapons if the pat answer for everything is to "just give them what they want"? If they are a threat but not yet shooting & you fight back, "you started it":mad:. To you, you lose. If they are a threat & they shoot first, you're probably dead or seriously injured. You lose. If they aren't a threat, there is no crime & it is moot. If, in any encounter, you lose, what's the point of any self-defense at all?

Unless of course you only advocate compliance for the rest of us.

[David Armstrong]

What law is that exactly?
A fairly standard legal requirement is that you must be in imminent fear of loss of life or great bodily harm. By your own scenario ( he is leaving) you are not in imminent fear of loss of life or great bodily harm.
Well what exactly do you suggest in that situation?
I might suggest calling LE and an ambulance.
Compliance is "cowering & hoping".
Obviously your vocabulary needs a little work.
So your wife (or yourself) was just raped, the guy is still in the room & you say there are Lots of things you can do besides using deadly force against him?
Yes, very good. That is what I say. In fact, that is what I said.
Invite him to stay for tea & crumpets maybe?
Umm, no, why would I do that? I do enjoy a good crumpet, but why would I want to invite a stranger who is obviously a bad person to stay around and share mine? Let him get his own crumpets.
Also what do you think the purpose of the death penalty is if not revenge by society & a possible deterrence to others (not that it really does much in that regard)? The death row inmate is not an imminent threat to anybody, why kill him?
Because he has been tried in a court of law and been found guilty by a jury of his peers who have determined that, among many alternatives, that penalty is the one he should suffer. Not sure what any of that has to do with this, however.
Just let the rapist have his way with you & you will probably be OK.
Nonsense. I did not say that, and for you to claim I did is dishonest. I have never said to let the rapist have his way with you, and I have never said you would probably be OK if you did. One of the surest signs that a person is unable to come up with a rational argument is when they start claiming others have said things that have not been said.
I didn't start it.
Let's see now... BG is not shooting. BG is getting in car trying to drive away. You shoot at him. Yep, you started the gunfight.
Why do you bother to even own any weapons if the pat answer for everything is to "just give them what they want"?
I don't know, as that is not my position. My position is to do whatever is needed to minimize your loss of resources. Sometimes that is compliance. Sometimes that is fight as hard and as long as you can. Sometimes it is something in between. Why do you bother to make up things rather than discuss what is actually said?
If they are a threat but not yet shooting & you fight back, "you started it". To you, you lose.
Again, you might want to try dealing with what is actually said instead of making up these little fictions.
If they are a threat & they shoot first, you're probably dead or seriously injured. You lose.
Your lack of knowledge about gunfight dynamics is showing rather badly.
Unless of course you only advocate compliance for the rest of us.
I don't advocate compliance for anybody. I support the idea of doing whatever is needed to get through the encounter with the least amount of danger and loss of resources to yourself and others.

[OldMarksman]

From finity: don't shoot in violation of the law! What law is that exactly?

The law against homicide, of course.

You can use deadly force to defend yourself or family against (that means prevent) imminent death or serious injury (the latter includes rape), or in many places, to stop someone from unlawfully entering your occupied dwelling or vehicle (that is, you do not have to retreat in many places), but after the threat dissipates you are not justified in using deadly force. If a guy is getting into your car (and you are not in it), and if you shoot, you are in violation of the law in Indiana and in most other places, and in Texas in the daytime.

Also what do you think the purpose of the death penalty is if not revenge by society & a possible deterrence to others ...?

Another purpose is to keep the perp from committing another serous crime. But: that penalty is administered via justice served by the legal system, with due process. Neither a policeman nor a civilian is permitted to shoot someone in revenge, if that's where you are coming from.

OK women, you heard the man. Just let the rapist have his way with you & you will probably be OK.

I'm not sure what you mean by that, but I know of no one who doesn't advocate resisting a rape.

If you do own a gun, you may want to brush up on the law in your state. Perhaps these may help you also:

http://www.useofforce.us/

http://www.corneredcat.com/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Castle_Doctrine

There are a lot of links within the second one, and I particularly recommend that you study the ones under Legal Concerns. I should think that the words on the opening page would correct any misconception that you might have that the recommended course is to comply in a rape situation.

If you still have questions you may want to invest in an hour of a good criminal lawyer's time. That could be money well spent, if it prevents having to pay for hundreds of hours and possibly end up convicted of a crime.

I hope you find this helpful.

[fiddletown]

finity, OldMarksman makes some excellent points. It looks like you need to brush up on the law of self defense and the use of lethal force.

[BuckHammer]

I have a right to my property, which I guess is natural rights philosophy. I consider my vehicle my property. I will defend my property by any means necessary. Even when the BG is driving my vehicle, it is still my property. Once he is gone, there is no guarantee that I will regain possession of my vehicle and its contents. If I can stop the guy from fleeing the scene (by shooting him), I will most likely do it, being careful about what is behind my target, so as not to cause harm to a bystander. I would certainly hope that I would not have to resort to this horrible, traumatizing scenario, but I must, however, protect my rights, otherwise, what do I have?

[fiddletown]

...but I must, however, protect my rights, otherwise, what do I have?
In the situation as you describe it, you have either aggravated assault or manslaughter (depending on whether the person you shoot survives), a prison sentence and the loss of your guns.

[Recon7]

otherwise, what do I have?
A blood stained vehicle with 1 or 2 windows shot out that is taken by the police as evidence to be used against you :)

[OldMarksman]

From BuckHammer: I will defend my property by any means necessary. Even when the BG is driving my vehicle, it is still my property. Once he is gone, there is no guarantee that I will regain possession of my vehicle and its contents. If I can stop the guy from fleeing the scene (by shooting him), I will most likely do it, being careful about what is behind my target, so as not to cause harm to a bystander.

BuckHammer, I don't know where you got the erroneous idea that it is legally permissible to use deadly force in the defense of property, but I suggest that you follow the same advice I gave to finity, and study the same information.

That is, if you are serious.

Should you choose that course to "protect" your rights, you will end up giving them (rights to have firearms, rights to personal freedom, in addition to the right to use your car) up.

[BuckHammer]

First of all, I never said that what I would do would be legal. Also, I'm not talking about a 100 yard shot at him, I'm talking about when he just starts driving away, like still four or five feet away. I just don't think I would have it in me to watch a guy drive off in my truck while I have the means to stop him. No, I'm not saying it's legal, and I'm not advocating that action, I'm just saying what I would probably do in that situation, and why I would do that. Although I might shoot out a tire or something else, but really there's no telling because every carjacking is different, and I've never been carjacked. Also, there is no guarantee that you will regain possession of your vehicle at any point. And no, I do not like the idea of killing someone just to kill someone. If this would happen to me, I would probably not comply with his orders, even at gunpoint, at which point I would draw my weapon because I would rather die defending my property than live and watch the guy take it.

[fiddletown]

...I never said that what I would do would be legal...
Enjoy prison.

[BuckHammer]

I would just be protecting my rights and my freedom. Aren't we glad that the Founders weren't afraid to go to prison by doing the same thing?

[onthejon55]

once again that goes back to the "would you stand there and watch as someone finished raping yr wife" scenario im sure that if i had the means to put an end to an armed carjacking i would use deadly force

[Threefeathers]

I just ran off the 'new' Arizona revised statutes on using force. Arizona specifically recognized a 'vehicle' as home and the Castle Doctrine applies. In speaking to the Cochise County Attorney. (his daughter was on my Mock Trial team, she played a defense attorney) there have been too many innocent people killed because they didn't resist and the Perp drove them away and usually raped the women and killed all in the car anyway. I have a nephew I think I told Fiddletown about who is spending 12 years in the slammer for 52 carjackings. He got violent at least half the times, pulling an elderly woman out of the drivers side window once. This was in front of witnesses who did absolutely nothing.

[fiddletown]

I would just be protecting my rights and my freedom. Aren't we glad that the Founders weren't afraid to go to prison by doing the same thing?
You're not protecting your freedom, because you would be losing your freedom. You would also be abdicating your responsibilities to your family, friends and co-workers -- all those who care for you and who may depend on you for either actual or emotional support. You would be throwing away your freedom and your future over a mere thing, that should be insured and could be replaced.

That's not by any stretch of the imagination what the Founders did and what they risked their futures for. To compare using violence against a mere thief of property to the risks and sacrifices made by the Founders is an insult to their memories.

[onthejon55]

they risked their lives for wat they believed was their property rite? or were they fighting for something else that no one has ever heard of?

[BuckHammer]

Fiddletown, I simply do not agree. I believe that the Founders risked their lives to form a Union in which you're property and rights cannot be taken for no reason. If some thug decides to try to deprive me of my rights, I will, in response, exercise my second amendment right to protect my other rights. I don't see any difference between some thug and a redcoat. But I guess the "Shot Heard 'Round the World" was just an unsolicited shooting upon poor, defenseless redcoats. I hope that guy got jailed for manslaughter.

[fiddletown]

Threefeathers, the difference is whether you are in physical danger or only losing property. If you can articulate why a reasonable and prudent person in like circumstances and knowing what you know would conclude that the use of lethal force is necessary to prevent immediate and otherwise unavoidable death or grave bodily injury to the innocent, the use of lethal force would of course be appropriate. But in several of the examples outline, the threat has either passed or is otherwise not present. In that event, the use of lethal force would not be appropriate.

[fiddletown]

...If some thug decides to try to deprive me of my rights, I will, in response, exercise my second amendment right to protect my other rights. I don't see any difference between some thug and a redcoat....
If you truly can't see the difference, I pity you.

[BuckHammer]

The revolutionaries were fighting to protect themselves from an unfair legal system in which they had no rights against the British regime and any property could be seized on a whim and troops could be quartered in homes whenever it was deemed necessary. All of this was legal. To oppose this was illegal. When the law didn't protect Americans from these actions, they got together and did something about it. When the law doesn't protect me from my property getting seized by some punk, then I'll do something about it. My action my have questionable legality (even though I would shoot him in the face without exiting my vehicle, which if he had a weapon pointed at me, would be legal), and so did the revolutionaries' actions. Overall, it is what they did scaled down to an individual level.

[fiddletown]

The revolutionaries were fighting to protect themselves from an unfair legal system in which they had no rights against the British regime and any property could be seized on a whim and troops could be quartered in homes whenever it was deemed necessary. All of this was legal. To oppose this was illegal. When the law didn't protect Americans from these actions, they got together and did something about it. When the law doesn't protect me from my property getting seized by some punk, then I'll do something about it. My action my have questionable legality (even though I would shoot him in the face without exiting my vehicle, which if he had a weapon pointed at me, would be legal), and so did the revolutionaries' actions....
Shooting a thief making off with your truck is the same as founding a new nation with a government based on new principles! Really, I don't think that I've ever heard such nonsense in my life. Illegally shooting a car thief doesn't make you a revolutionary or a patriot. It merely makes you a common criminal.

[BuckHammer]

Alright, so we disagree. I have made my argument, and like I said quite a few posts ago, I'm not advocating that action, I'm just saying what I would do. And before you call me a "common criminal", don't forget that it's my truck, registered in my name, regardless of who's just stolen it.

[onthejon55]

calling someone a common criminal because they choose to defend their property instead of watching it be taken from them is really sad and shows that most Americans really dnt believe in the right to property any more

[fiddletown]

...calling someone a common criminal because they choose to defend their property instead of watching it be taken from them...
Well under the law, shooting a thief running off with your property, when you are not personally in mortal danger, is not justified, and it is, in fact, a crime. It will be aggravated assault (or something similar, depending on the terminology in the particular jurisdiction), if the thief survives. It will be manslaughter if he doesn't. Committing such a crime makes one a common criminal in my book.

...most Americans really dnt believe in the right to property any more...
And that's an absurd statement. We believe in and respect private property. But I suspect that most of us have better sense than to throw away our freedom and future, and abdicate our responsibilities to those who depend on us, for the sake of some mere thing that is replaceable.

[onthejon55]

people like you are the reason the "right to property" is treated more like a privilege every day. rather that stand up for whats yours you wud rather see it stolen than attempt to defend it. so what happens when someone makes off with your dog? your niece? your child? your wife? are you telling me that its okay to let the BG get away because there is a chance you may face charges for defending wat is yours?

[fiddletown]

onthejon55, according to your profile, you're only 18 years old. I have more than 3 times the life experience. But even at 18, you should by now understand the difference between your life or the life of some other innocent you might be in a position to protect and a mere object. You should also be beginning to learn that you have responsibilities to your community and to other people.

And property rights are founded on the law. They are not founded upon the use of violence. And yes, it is both better and legally required to let a thief escape with property, as long as you or another innocent is not in mortal danger, than to commit a crime and forfeit your freedom and future to retain a mere object by use of lethal force.

[BuckHammer]

I viewed onthejon's profile, and he is, in fact 38 years old. I don't know what you were looking at. Anyway, since we're talking about age, you sir, at age 54 (18x3=54) should realize the benefits of standing up for yourself and being happy versus letting everyone walk all over you. Just because something is the law does not make it OK. Just look at slavery. However, I do advocate following the law at all times, I'm just saying that I may not always follow it.

[omkhan]

@fiddletown,
I believe their is a huge difference b/w a thief and a robber, an armed robber i.e. An armed robbery is an aggravated assault and is not a mere stealing. The guys above r not supporting to shoot a a thief but an armed robber who is a threat even if u r out of car but in the range of his pistol & the car.

[onthejon55]

18? not sure where you got that figure but im sure that the use of violence to defend property has been a key right throughout human history. not only did the founding fathers pass laws saying that the colonies were theirs but they used violence to defend them. and also wat happens when everything you worked for all of your life is taken away by people who simply want it? you are left a homeless starving hobo with no way to take care of the people you have responsibilities to

[fiddletown]

Perhaps I misread his profile, but my opinions of his comments stand.

And omkhan, the legal standard remains whether a reasonable and prudent person in like circumstances and knowing what you know would conclude that the use of lethal force is necessary to prevent immediate and otherwise unavoidable death or grave bodily injury to the innocent.

[fiddletown]

...im sure that the use of violence to defend property has been a key right throughout human history...
Well, you're wrong. But be that as it may, it's still a crime around here. I hope you enjoy prison. Maybe you can get a cell next to BuckHammer.

[onthejon55]

I dnt know where youre evidence is but my evidence points to me being right so i guess if you dnt want to use logic we can agree to disagree. (the prison comments are not necessary considering some of us have had personal experiences with family members in prison)

[BuckHammer]

Yeah, "you're wrong, so there!" is not an effective method of debate in my book and usually a sign of defeat. Also, in spite of your unnecessary prison comments, I wish you nothing but the best, buddy.

[fiddletown]

Evidence, from the 1915 abridgment of Blackstone's 18th century Commentaries on the Common Law of England (page 289) --

http://books.google.com/books?id=jAU9AAAAIAAJ&pg=PA289&lpg=PA289&dq=blackstone+force+in+defense+of+property+by+force&source=bl&ots=RPrCLnV33h&sig=sjNCz1mYMhx-G5eWA9FGk3rWAKE&hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=8&ct=result

Force may be used in self defense, in which "...if the party himself, or any of these his relations, be forcibly attacked in his person or property, it is lawful for him to repel force by force..." with the caveat that, "...care must be taken that the resistance does not exceed the bounds of mere defense and prevention, for then the defender would himself become an aggressor..." (emphasis added)

However, note that under what Blackstone refers to as reprisal, once property is taken, it may be recovered or retained only if, "...it be not in a riotous manner, or attended with a breach of the peace....." Blackstone notes, "...the public peace is a superior consideration to any one man's private property ; and as, if individuals were once allowed to use private force as a remedy for private injuries, all social justice must cease, the strong would give law to the weak, and every man would revert to a state of nature; for these reasons it is provided that this natural right of recaption shall never be exerted where such exertion must occasion strife and bodily contention, or endanger the peace of society..." (emphasis added)

So once the thief has physical possession of your property, the rule for at least 250 years has been that you may not use violence to recover it.

There is thus an historic distinction between using force to defend one's person or property from an immediate attack presenting physical danger to the defender on one hand, and using force after the attack has ended and the thief now has possession, albeit wrongful, of property.

In the hypothetical that started this discussion, BuckHammer wrote, "...when the BG is driving my vehicle, ... If I can stop the guy from fleeing the scene (by shooting him), I will most likely do it...." As thus described, the attack has broken off, and the defender is no longer in immediate, physical danger. Thus, as described by Blackstone, under long standing principles of Common Law violence to recover the property would not be legally permitted.

And since under modern law in the United States, lethal force is generally justified only in the case of immediate danger of death or grave bodily injury, the use of lethal force to recover property already taken would constitute either aggravated assault or manslaughter.

[Brit]

Evidence, from the 1915 abridgment of Blackstone's 18th century Commentaries on the Common Law of England (page 289) --


This is not England, and they over the pond have no rights, and no weapons, we do.

Just a truck? It's insured, Bye, Bye, one of my family members in it, he is shot in the face, upward direction. The shout of "Down!" would take my Wife out of the line of fire.

[buzz_knox]

Here's a novel suggestion. If you want legal advice on the use of deadly force, track down an attorney in your area familiar with the relevant law in your jurisdiction and, hopefully, neighboring jurisdictions. For less than the cost of a training course or a used weapon, you can get quality advice from non-anonymous sources on the internet. Taking LFI-1 would be extremely beneficial as well.

There has been a lot of good advice in this thread, but also some that doesn't meet the legal standards of at least a few jurisdictions I'm aware of. Unfortunately, weeding through the two types is a bit difficult for most and guaranteed confusion for all.

[OldMarksman]

From Brit: This is not England

True, but you are apparently not aware that most U. S. criminal laws are in fact rooted in English Common Law, and thus, so is the legal education system, and the instructions that will be given to the jury. That's the real point.

And Fiddletown's reference is thus most pertinent to the law in Indiana.

[OldMarksman]

From onthejohn55: I dnt know where youre evidence is but my evidence points to me being right s

Your evidence? Come now. Fiddletown is trained in the law and his basing his free advice to you on real legal knowledge.

I have posted some authoritative links in this thread, one of which is the relevant Indiana code. You either have not studied them or do not understand them. It is incumbent on you to rectify that before carrying, drawing, pointing, or firing a lethal weapon.

so i guess if you dnt want to use logic we can agree to disagree.

You can "disagree" all you want, but that won't do you a bit of good, should you act illegally and use deadly force where it is not justified. It will be you against the state law, the evidence, and the judge's instructions to the jury, and at that point your fate will be completely out of your hands.

From BuckHammer: Yeah, "you're wrong, so there!" is not an effective method of debate in my book

I trust you found Fiddletown's comprehensive explanation posted today at 4:07 to meet your needs here. However, when an attorney (other than counsel for the opposition) says to me "you're wrong", I have no reason to believe otherwise.

in spite of your unnecessary prison comments

Since you evidently did not understand either the legality of your suggested course of action nor the severe potential consequences, that comment seemed to me appropriate and in fact constructive, if it keeps you out of jail.

In discussions in this forum and in talking with people, I have found the limitations on the use of deadly force in the defense of property to be one of the most misunderstood subjects. Perhaps people have seen so many Westerns in which masked outlaws jump on their horses and people shoot at them as the ride away that they think that's the appropriate thing to to today. In some cases those portrayals may reflect to some extent the reality of the time and place, but they occurred in territories without state judicial systems.

If people do not understand the law and the ethical situation, I fear two results: (1) a lot of otherwise decent citizens will end up incarcerated with their gun rights gone forever due to their having committed felonies, and (2) we will all suffer from additional restrictions on concealed carry because of a perceived need to "reduce the violence".

Neither would be good, in my book.

I hope this proves helpful. I'm not spending my time on this to win an argument. I don't need to. Things are the way things are.

[fiddletown]

[1] The request was for evidence that the use of violence to defend property is not a key right throughout human history. The reference to Blackstone's historic Commentaries regarding English Common Law, on which the law of the United States is based, demonstrates that historically there has been a distinction between the use of violence to defend against the act of taking and the use of violence after the taking has occurred. And the original hypothetical related to the use of force after the taking was completed.

[2] ...Taking LFI-1 would be extremely beneficial as well....
A great class. I took it myself earlier this month.

[buzz_knox]

A great class. I took it myself earlier this month.

If I agreed with making the purchase of a firearm contingent on having taken a class beforehand, this would be the class that should be required.

Knowing how to shoot is less important than knowing when to shoot and when not to.

[David Armstrong]

First of all, I never said that what I would do would be legal.
---snip---
I would rather die defending my property than live and watch the guy take it.
Well, that pretty well says it all. And some folks wonder why the anti-gunners worry about folks having guns. Sigh.

[David Armstrong]

there have been too many innocent people killed because they didn't resist and the Perp drove them away and usually raped the women and killed all in the car anyway.
Strange how all these killings never seem to make it into any official records.

[David Armstrong]

The revolutionaries were fighting to protect themselves from an unfair legal system in which they had no rights against the British regime and any property could be seized on a whim and troops could be quartered in homes whenever it was deemed necessary.
The lack of understanding by most citizens regarding the background and reasons for the American Revolution is sometimes truly astounding.

[David Armstrong]

And before you call me a "common criminal", don't forget that it's my truck, registered in my name, regardless of who's just stolen it.
The fact that you engage in criminal activity is not reduced based on the fact that you are engaging in that criminal activity to maintain control over your own property, except under some narrow jsutifications spelled out in each states laws. You cannot break into someone's home and hold them at gunpoint while you recover an item they stole from you, for example. And a basic justification concept is that you cannot cause a greater harm to prevent a lesser harm.

[pax]

Wow, this thread sure has gotten personal.

Closed.

*sigh*

pax