Defending 'lethal property.'

[Maximus856]

I posted up a little while ago about a friend who was robbed at gunpoint while walking to the gas station with his girlfriend and little brother. The BG's took his backpack and wallet and ran away. Now, I found out a little detail the other night that is a lesson to him and a question for me. I didn't know at the time, but he had purchased a Glock (I forget the model) and also got his PA LTCF. For whatever reason, he had it in his stolen backpack. That's the lesson for him.

Now the question for me. Say for example he had a BUG, or was carrying his normal carry weapon while transporting other weapons in the pack. The BG's had a gun to his head, so I can imagine any quick movements to draw may be a very bad idea. The robbery went without a shot fired and the BG's ran away, however they are now getting away with a weapon that could do harm to others. Does he now have the right to use lethal force? Or does the fact that they already have a weapon negate that? This is on the street and not on personal property. For the record, the police were called and the weapon reported stolen.

Now the reason I ask is a bit far out, as it pertains to military ROE's and protecting sensitive/lethal material allows for lethal force. The disclaimer is I know that ROE's are a whole different world from the world of a civilian and CCW, but left me curious to the legalities none-the-less. I want it to be known that I am not looking for an excuse to just openly shoot a BG. I did a quick search and came up with mostly defense of property while on your property. So if anyone knows for PA that would be greatly appreciated, but I am curious to hear about this in other states.

Thanks,
Max

[Bartholomew Roberts]

It depends on Pennsylvania state law. Pennsylvania law on Justification is Chapter 5 of Title 18 of the PA Code.

(2) The use of deadly force is not justifiable under
this section unless the actor believes that such force is
necessary to protect himself against death, serious bodily
injury, kidnapping or sexual intercourse compelled by force
or threat; nor is it justifiable if:

(i) the actor, with the intent of causing death or
serious bodily injury, provoked the use of force against
himself in the same encounter; or
(ii) the actor knows that he can avoid the necessity
of using such force with complete safety by retreating or
by surrendering possession of a thing to a person
asserting a claim of right thereto or by complying with a
demand that he abstain from any action which he has no
duty to take, except that:

(A) the actor is not obliged to retreat from his
dwelling or place of work, unless he was the initial
aggressor or is assailed in his place of work by
another person whose place of work the actor knows it
to be; and
(B) a public officer justified in using force in
the performance of his duties or a person justified
in using force in his assistance or a person
justified in using force in making an arrest or
preventing an escape is not obliged to desist from
efforts to perform such duty, effect such arrest or
prevent such escape because of resistance or
threatened resistance by or on behalf of the person
against whom such action is directed.

Looking at just the Pennsylvania code I found (and there may be other relevant parts I missed), it looks like use of deadly force is limited only to circumstances where "(deadly) force is necessary to protect himself against death, serious bodily injury, kidnapping or sexual intercourse compelled by force or threat."

[Don H]

Utah:

76-2-406. Force in defense of property -- Affirmative defense.
(1) A person is justified in using force, other than deadly force, against another when and to the extent that the person reasonably believes that force is necessary to prevent or terminate another person's criminal interference with real property or personal property:
(a) lawfully in the person's possession;
(b) lawfully in the possession of a member of the person's immediate family; or
(c) belonging to a person whose property the person has a legal duty to protect.
(2) In determining reasonableness under Subsection (1), the trier of fact shall, in addition to any other factors, consider the following factors:
(a) the apparent or perceived extent of the damage to the property;
(b) property damage previously caused by the other person;
(c) threats of personal injury or damage to property that have been made previously by the other person; and
(d) any patterns of abuse or violence between the person and the other person.

76-2-402. Force in defense of person -- Forcible felony defined.
(1) (a) A person is justified in threatening or using force against another when and to the extent that the person reasonably believes that force or a threat of force is necessary to defend the person or a third person against another person's imminent use of unlawful force.
(b) A person is justified in using force intended or likely to cause death or serious bodily injury only if the person reasonably believes that force is necessary to prevent death or serious bodily injury to the person or a third person as a result of another person's imminent use of unlawful force, or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.
(2) (a) A person is not justified in using force under the circumstances specified in Subsection (1) if the person:
(i) initially provokes the use of force against the person with the intent to use force as an excuse to inflict bodily harm upon the assailant;
(ii) is attempting to commit, committing, or fleeing after the commission or attempted commission of a felony; or
(iii) was the aggressor or was engaged in a combat by agreement, unless the person withdraws from the encounter and effectively communicates to the other person his intent to do so and, notwithstanding, the other person continues or threatens to continue the use of unlawful force.
(b) For purposes of Subsection (2)(a)(iii) the following do not, by themselves, constitute "combat by agreement":
(i) voluntarily entering into or remaining in an ongoing relationship; or
(ii) entering or remaining in a place where one has a legal right to be.
(3) A person does not have a duty to retreat from the force or threatened force described in Subsection (1) in a place where that person has lawfully entered or remained, except as provided in Subsection (2)(a)(iii).
(4) (a) For purposes of this section, a forcible felony includes aggravated assault, mayhem, aggravated murder, murder, manslaughter, kidnapping, and aggravated kidnapping, rape, forcible sodomy, rape of a child, object rape, object rape of a child, sexual abuse of a child, aggravated sexual abuse of a child, and aggravated sexual assault as defined in Title 76, Chapter 5, Offenses Against the Person, and arson, robbery, and burglary as defined in Title 76, Chapter 6, Offenses Against Property.
(b) Any other felony offense which involves the use of force or violence against a person so as to create a substantial danger of death or serious bodily injury also constitutes a forcible felony.
(c) Burglary of a vehicle, defined in Section 76-6-204, does not constitute a forcible felony except when the vehicle is occupied at the time unlawful entry is made or attempted.
(5) In determining imminence or reasonableness under Subsection (1), the trier of fact may consider, but is not limited to, any of the following factors:
(a) the nature of the danger;
(b) the immediacy of the danger;
(c) the probability that the unlawful force would result in death or serious bodily injury;
(d) the other's prior violent acts or violent propensities; and
(e) any patterns of abuse or violence in the parties' relationship.

Nothing in Utah's laws allow one to blow someone away because the stolen property could possibly be used to injure someone sometime in the unforseen future.

[Rifleman 173]

In most states, you don't defend property. You defend your life or another person's life. Having a gun in a backpack is never a good idea. If you have a concealed carry license, you carry your gun so it is available for immediate use. Also you must maintain situational awareness 100% of the time or else you walk into an ambush like your friend did. I can imagine that your friend understands the first two points I have stressed but I bet that he still does NOT maintain situational awareness. Most people who fall for an ambush are the type who will fall for another one. It is just one of those strange things where some people don't recognize an ambush threat until it is too late and then survival becomes the main issue. Your friend probably shouldn't be out walking alone, especially at night.

[FireForged]

I will not speak to what the law says you may or maynot do but I will say that no matter what I may be authorized to do, I am not going to shoot at someone fleeing from me.

[dabo]

In Florida, use of deadly force is only allowed to stop a forced felony. Armed robery is a forced felony. Shooting the perp is stopping it.

[FireForged]

In Florida, use of deadly force is only allowed to stop a forced felony. Armed robery is a forced felony. Shooting the perp is stopping it.

...and who would determine exactly when the act of Robbery occured and exactly when it ended? Its certainly possible that 12member jury would decide.

[JustThisGuy]

I cannot think of any circumstance whatsoever where I could shoot a person who had committed a crime and was leaving the scene.

Regardless of the moral or legal issues, the experience of having to defend the action to a Grand Jury (and possible criminal trial) (and probable civil trial) would be an experience to remember. Prison time is always something to look forward to, as is losing all your worldly goods to a BG's worthless relatives (and the spawn of the dead).

Sometimes, no matter what its best to just be calm, have a cupcake.

[Evan Thomas]

As I understand it, the OP is asking whether the nature ("lethal") of the property being stolen might be a reason to use deadly force to stop the theft.

Another way to think about this is that, regardless of whether, or when, it might be OK to use deadly force to stop a robbery, it's never OK to use deadly force against someone because of what you think he might do in the future.

So, no -- you wouldn't be justified in shooting a robber because you think he might use your stolen property in some hypothetical future crime.

[Webleymkv]

Let's slow down and think about a couple of things for a moment. In the situation described, we have no reason to believe that the BG had any intent to use force beyond intimidation. The fact that the BG left the scene after obtaining the backpack tells me that he had no intention to harm anyone so long as his demand were met.

What the BG could theoretically gain from stealing a gun is the ability rather than the intent to use deadly force, but because the BG already had a gun to begin with he already had that ability before the robbery was initiated.

Finally, it does not appear that the BG knew at the time of the robbery that the backpack contained a gun. In this particular instance it makes little difference because the BG already had a gun of his own to begin with, but even if he did not the unwitting theft of a firearm does not mean that the BG intends to use said firearm later.

While perhaps a bit oversimplified, shooting a BG who has stolen a gun and is leaving the scene is not all that dissimilar to shooting a BG who has stolen a car and is leaving the scene. Both items, if used by the wrong person in a certain manner, can be quite dangerous to innocent people. I do not think, however, that many people would view shooting a fleeing thief in a stolen automobile as justifiable.

There is also a more practical side to this. With every step the BG takes away from the victim, the level of danger to the victim is decreased. If, however, the victim chooses to engage in a gunfight with the BG after he has chosen to leave, they increase the risk of injury to themselves and bystanders unnecessarily.

[zombie666]

Several parts of the Mississippi code would have allowed your friend to legally use deadly force to stop a felony in progress. In addition many district attornies in this state would decline to indict as it would be a waste of their time. They know they would never get a jury to convict.

[Maximus856]

Thanks for the input everyone.

Like I said, I don't have any sort of 'future intent' to do something of the sort should it happen. I was more-so curious as to whether or not there were laws in areas allowing so.

As far as him being ambushed, I think there is a bit more to it then I know. I do know however, that he grew up in the area where it happened and walking around the streets was something he has done all of his life. I think the statement of having CCW for protection is a bit one sided, with no disrespect. I have mine for protection, as well as being able to hide my weapons in the car without fear of the law throwing me the book. I kind of look at it as a blanket to cover all the bases of why I have or where I have my weapons.

And FWIW, I plan on talking to my buddy about it. I was surprised to hear he had purchased a weapon and even more surprised to hear he had gotten his LTCF. I feel he's responsible as a gun owner, however I think he could use a bit more knowledge on CCW, along with overall self defense. I'm not an instructor, just a good caring friend though

-Max

[youngunz4life]

no, I do not believe you can shoot someone because they are running away with your firearm. some laws technically might uphold for certain instances, but I still think the answer is no. I am a believer in lethal force when necessary but not in this situation.

[shootniron]

I cannot think of any circumstance whatsoever where I could shoot a person who had committed a crime and was leaving the scene.

If he had just hurt one of my family members......I would hurt him, it would not matter one whit to me that he was leaving.

[JohnKSa]

... it would not matter one whit to me that he was leaving.

There's more than just a really good chance it would matter to you--and that it would matter considerably more than just "one whit" after the legal system got done with you.

Deadly force laws are, in most places, exclusively about self-defense and offer no protection to someone who shoots a person who poses no threat. Intentionally shooting someone without legal justification is murder and it's highly unlikely that any rational person could commit murder and deal with all the consequences and still accurately make the statement that it didn't "matter one whit".

Deadly force may not legally be used to retaliate against someone nor to punish someone for their actions. It can only be legally used to prevent certain specific felonious activities under very carefully defined circumstances.

[shootniron]

Deadly force laws are, in most places, exclusively about self-defense and offer no protection to someone who shoots a person who poses no threat. Intentionally shooting someone without legal justification is murder and it's highly unlikely that any rational person could commit murder and deal with all the consequences and still accurately make the statement that it didn't "matter one whit".

To each his own, I could deal with the criminal or legal circumstances of my action of reprisal to the BG better than I could live with the fact that I let him walk away after grievously injuring by raping, stabbing or shooting someone in my family. And, I am not talking about hunting them down to do this, my comment pertains to catching them as this was happening. If you could live with that, I admire you.....but I am not cut from that cloth.

[Don H]

shootniron,

Let me ask you this: After being grievously injured by a bad guy, would your family member(s) rather you be around to see them through the trauma or would they rather have to deal with your murder trial and your possible incarceration for life on top of everything else? Where would you do them the most good, in jail/prison or with them?

[Doc Intrepid]

Note to self --

Lesson learned: Never walk to a gas station carrying a Glock in my backpack...

[JohnKSa]

could deal with the criminal or legal circumstances of my action of reprisal to the BG better than I could live with the fact that I let him walk away after grievously injuring by raping, stabbing or shooting someone in my family.

The bottom line is that it's the same kind of illegal to attack someone and "grievously injure by raping, stabbing or shooting" as it is to shoot a person who is not a threat.

...my comment pertains to catching them as this was happening.

Your comment was not about "catching them as this was happening", it was about shooting him as "he was leaving". Shooting to stop a violent attack as it is happening is almost certainly legal. Shooting the attacker as he is leaving is almost certainly not.

Deadly force laws are about preventing or stopping violent crime, not about retribution or punishment.

[shootniron]

Don H,

The chances are very good that if this happened, it would be in my home. In my state, if the BG were in my home, he is out of bounds and I would be justified in my actions. If we were in a different situation, doing my part to protect them, I would probably interject myself into the situation in a matter that would make him turn his attention to me and at the same time make it self defense.

[JohnKSa]

...if the BG were in my home, he is out of bounds and I would be justified in my actions.

Be careful with this.

The Castle Doctrine laws don't necessarily give a person carte blanche to shoot anyone who is found in their home. They simply shift the burden of proof to the state. In other words, they don't automatically mean a shooting inside a home is legally justified, they just mean that the state must presume that it is justified unless they can clearly prove otherwise.

If the circumstances of the case make it obvious that it was not justified (e.g. the attacker was obviously trying to get away when shot) or if a person's public comments or statements make it plain that they used or planned to use deadly force even if it wasn't required then the wicket can get sticky, as they say.

[shootniron]

JohnKSa

I totally agree with what you and the others are saying. I am not a vigilante, and I would in no way shoot someone in the back. I would,however, make an effort to inhibit them from leaving until LE could get on the scene. If in my efforts to do this, he turned on me, then it would not be good for him. And, in my original post, I did use "leaving" , which was a poor choice of wording, but I did not mean to imply that I would shoot him in the back.

Also, I think that it is easy to post what one would do on this forum, but when and if the situation actually arose.......the stress and emotion could make it a different story, I may honestly be so horrified that I would actually do nothing.

But, all of points made to me have been well taken and I appreciate what you guys have said and I will also give this alot more thought.....which I guess is the reason that I enjoy this forum as much as I do.

[Hiker 1]

Is "lethal property" even a legal term? If not, then the answer is absolutely 'no'. A car can cause a lot of damage, but it's still property and its theft does not warrant deadly force. The same would apply to a gun in this backpack incident.

[JohnKSa]

Also, I think that it is easy to post what one would do on this forum, but when and if the situation actually arose.......the stress and emotion could make it a different story...

One never really knows for certain, but I think it's important to have thought things through enough to have set up at least a basic framework to operate within.

In other words, even after thinking things through ahead of time and giving the proper consideration to the legalities involved, one may still not take the proper actions when under extreme stress. But if one doesn't think things through and doesn't consider the legalities involved before an encounter occurs, in my opinion, the odds of doing the right thing decrease significantly.

It's somewhat analogous to physical training. You can train extensively and still screw up when things go south. But if you don't train the odds of getting it right are pretty slim.

[Powderman]

In the situation described, we have no reason to believe that the BG had any intent to use force beyond intimidation.

I beg to differ.

By pointing a firearm in the direction of the victim and making it clear that the victim was the object of his attention, the BG was, at that instant in time, using deadly force.

While drawing against a drawn gun is a generally bad idea, if the BG had been shot at that time a claim of self defense would more than likely been found justifiable.