Say I catch a perpetrator.....

[JohnKSa]

You don't have authority to use deadly force to protect someone from taking your neighbors car in their driveway, that goes for all 50 states.

tsavo,

With all due respect, you are wrong. It is sometimes legal in TX to use deadly force to protect your own and other's property. Here is the text of the applicable sections of the Texas Penal Code. It's worth reading in its entirety.

It's definitely not ANYWHERE near as simple as being able to shoot someone for stealing, there's a LONG list of conditions which must be satisfied before it's legal. I tacked on section 9.06 which is pertinent to these sections and which is often glossed over by internet commandos.

Doug,

You are also wrong. The bottom line is that anyone who thinks TX law allows them to shoot someone for stealing is almost certainly going to go to jail if they act under those assumptions. It's not that simple by a long shot. If you want to have some "fun", try writing up a short post that describes when it is legal to shoot someone for stealing your neighbors's car. I'll bet you get bored and/or frustrated long before you've taken all the legal requirements into account. And even then, when you're done, and if you get it perfectly right, don't forget 9.06. You can still be sued even if your actions were completely within the law.

§ 9.06. CIVIL REMEDIES UNAFFECTED. The fact that conduct is justified under this chapter does not abolish or impair any remedy for the conduct that is available in a civil suit.
...
§ 9.41. PROTECTION OF ONE'S OWN PROPERTY. (a) A person in lawful possession of land or tangible, movable property is justified in using force against another when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to prevent or terminate the other's trespass on the land or unlawful interference with the property.
(b) A person unlawfully dispossessed of land or tangible, movable property by another is justified in using force against the other when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to reenter the land or recover the property if the actor uses the force immediately or in fresh pursuit after the dispossession and:
(1) the actor reasonably believes the other had no claim of right when he dispossessed the actor; or
(2) the other accomplished the dispossession by using force, threat, or fraud against the actor.

§ 9.42. DEADLY FORCE TO PROTECT PROPERTY. A person is justified in using deadly force against another to protect land or tangible, movable property:
(1) if he would be justified in using force against the other under Section 9.41; and
(2) when and to the degree he reasonably believes the deadly force is immediately necessary:
(A) to prevent the other's imminent commission of arson, burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, theft during the
nighttime, or criminal mischief during the nighttime; or
(B) to prevent the other who is fleeing immediately after committing burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, or theft during the nighttime from escaping with the property; and
(3) he reasonably believes that: (A) the land or property cannot be protected or recovered by any other means; or
(B) the use of force other than deadly force to protect or recover the land or property would expose the actor or another to a substantial risk of death or serious bodily injury.

§ 9.43. PROTECTION OF THIRD PERSON'S PROPERTY. A person is justified in using force or deadly force against another to protect land or tangible, movable property of a third person if, under the circumstances as he reasonably believes them to be, the actor would be justified under Section 9.41 or 9.42 in using force or deadly force to protect his own land or property and:
(1) the actor reasonably believes the unlawful interference constitutes attempted or consummated theft of or criminal mischief to the tangible, movable property; or
(2) the actor reasonably believes that:
(A) the third person has requested his protection of the land or property;
(B) he has a legal duty to protect the third person's land or property; or
(C) the third person whose land or property he uses force or deadly force to protect is the actor's spouse, parent, or child, resides with the actor, or is under the actor's care.

[Blackwater OPS]

A police officer CAN use deadly force to prevent the commision of a felony, while there are many departmental regulations that vary, the law is very clear on this.

[tsavo]

I don't care what the law says in Texas about protecting property, that really doesn't matter. The fact is you're going to be on trial simply because the law isn't cut and dry.

As far as police officers, show me 1 law that says an officer can walk up and kill a person simply because they are breaking into a car. That's the stupidest thing I've ever heard.

[JohnKSa]

I don't care what the law says in Texas about protecting property, that really doesn't matter. The fact is you're going to be on trial simply because the law isn't cut and dry.

That's silly, of course it matters. And no, a trial is NOT automatic. There have been several cases in the news over the past few years where people shot to protect property and weren't prosecuted. The law is what it is. It is complicated and restrictive, but it really DOES allow a citizen to protect his property with deadly force, if all the stringent requirements are met.

show me 1 law that says an officer can walk up and kill a person simply because they are breaking into a car.

The law is never that simple, and you're restating it in such a manner as to make it sound stupid. Nevertheless, I just showed you a law that said a citizen can kill a person for stealing a car under certain circumstances. Do you think a cop would be more restricted?

[tsavo]

So you're telling me that if you walk up behind someone who is trying to steal your neighbors cd player out of his car and shoot him in the back of the head you're not going on trail? lol, that's great.

[JohnKSa]

So you're telling me that if you walk up behind someone who is trying to steal your neighbors cd player out of his car and shoot him in the back of the head you're not going on trail? lol, that's great.

Of course I'm not telling you that--in fact it's mind-boggling that anyone could read what I've posted here and come up with such a ridiculous summary.

[Blackwater OPS]

CA PENAL CODE:

197. Homicide is also justifiable when committed by any person in
any of the following cases:
1. When resisting any attempt to murder any person, or to commit a
felony, or to do some great bodily injury upon any person; or,
2. When committed in defense of habitation, property, or person,
against one who manifestly intends or endeavors, by violence or
surprise, to commit a felony, or against one who manifestly intends
and endeavors, in a violent, riotous or tumultuous manner, to enter
the habitation of another for the purpose of offering violence to any
person therein; or,
3. When committed in the lawful defense of such person, or of a
wife or husband, parent, child, master, mistress, or servant of such
person, when there is reasonable ground to apprehend a design to
commit a felony or to do some great bodily injury, and imminent
danger of such design being accomplished; but such person, or the
person in whose behalf the defense was made, if he was the assailant
or engaged in mutual combat, must really and in good faith have
endeavored to decline any further struggle before the homicide was
committed; or,
4. When necessarily committed in attempting, by lawful ways and
means, to apprehend any person for any felony committed, or in
lawfully suppressing any riot, or in lawfully keeping and preserving
the peace.

Read section 2 carefully and also be aware that A. California penal code is one of the most restrictive in the country and B. police officers have even more authority to use deadly force although they are in fact more restricted due to departmental regs that civvies don't need to go by. BTW civil law is a whole other matter.

[Garand Illusion]

I think Tsavo is purposely just trying to stir things up. He continuously posts the same nonsense, ignoring the replies that have come.


Here's the bottom line, Tsavo. Please READ this before responding:

No, you cannot shoot someone for breaking into a car. Neither can a police officer. In no state do civilians have the right to execute people for what they believe is a crime.

In many states, however, you DO have the right to protect your own property. Now I realize this is not always the smart thing to do, but we're not all going to be sheep standing by while BG's take away something we've worked for. Take my off-roader, for instance. Value wise, I probably couldn't sell it for more than a couple of thousand bucks. But it represents MANY hours of wrenching in the garage and a HUGE committment of funds that would be difficult to reproduce.

And even if it weren't worth so much to me ... damnit! It's mine! And arguments of "just be a good little sheep and don't disturb the ugly bad men while they're taking your things right in front of you" is just not going to fly on a forum like this where we all take responsibility for our own safety and well being. Pansies did not make America (or any place/community) great; people who stood up for themselves did. When you stnad up against the neighborhood high school punks throwing rocks at windows or stealing cars for joyride, you're making a powerful statement and making your community a little better.

In terms of deadly force (i.e. shooting somebody) that is ONLY for defense of life in pretty much every state. And if I ever pull the trigger on someone, it's not going to be because beating them up would just be too much work and I'm not in the mood for it; it'll be because I believe there is a good chance they're going to do me seriously bodily harm, or because they have already proven that intent, or because they have a weapon. I think you'll find everyone on this forum is like that.

So please ... don't respond to this with yet another

So you're saying I can just walk up behind someone stealing my lawn gnomes and crush they're skull with an axe

Because no one has EVER said that.

But we will stand up to bad guys. And if things get out of hand they will lose. And the judge/jury will understand that.

[Garand Illusion]

If you think your life is worth risking for a 10 thousand dollar car I feel really bad for you. Lets just say the car is worth 10 grand, that's about a months pay for most successful people.

Does this smack to anyone else of a High School student just posting to get reactions?

The average person makes about 40,000 a year. So that 10 grand would be 3 months GROSS salary.

Figure in taxes adn etc., and it's more like 5 months salary.

Figure that the first thing out of every paycheck always has to be mortgage, utilities, etc. ... and it's more like 5 years of "discretionary" income.

[Blackwater OPS]

BTW to clarify I am only stating the facts of the law reguarding justifiable homicide, I would not rush out and shoot a man who appeared to be stealing someone's car. I would question them as to their actions and intentions, and if I felt a felony was being commited I would attempt to notify local authorities FIRST and attempt to detain that person second using only minimum reasonable force. If in the process of those action I felt my life or another persons life was in danger I would then AND ONLY THEN DRAW my weapon and fire it without and threats or hesitation. That is what I would do, I will not judge others opinions or call them "stupid" if they would take other actions as long as they can live with them and get their facts right.

[Harley Quinn]

Think about what you are saying in this thread, it is important to understand that you can not take a life unless it is dire. As in protecting your life or someone elses.

Sure just murder someone because he is stealing a piece of property. NOT.

Now put it like this, he is raping a young girl and choking her and she is about to die. Sure put the gun in his ear and pull. Hope it does not change direction and hit the already choking victim.

Probably not the right thing to do either but it is getting closer to fair. You should Yell, halt, or something to stop the person before you murder (yea it is murder) them. What degree, well the jury will figure that one out.

Harley

[oystermick]

The premise of this thread is absurd. The poster clearly is a gun carrier who wants to play Cop. I would suggest Doug.38PR lay off the fantasy crap and understand that carrying a gun does not make him big. I do get very disturbed by people who want to play Cop. I don't give a damn about my neighbor"s car.
Doug.38PR's mind set is bad for those of us who carry for PERSONAL protection. I ain't no vigilante man. I look after me and mine.

[tsavo]

I said a SUCCESSFUL person. I have a 40k + starting salary for me when I graduate already. The average person isn't successful by most means.

It's funny how most of you are back pedling now. Before it was, "Oh I can use deadly force to protect property". Then when I give a scenario you all say that it can't be done, yet you clearly just stated it could be. Someone even listed a law that says you can use deadly force to protect property, yet now you claim you can't.

[enidpd804]

Let's not forget case law. Federal and/or state case law trumps statutes. Garner v Tennesse clearly sets out the parameters for law enforcement deadly force in such situations. Though, the court's intention was to address deadly force against fleeing felons, I think the court's intent as well as subsequent rulings prove out that LEO's cannot use deadly force to protect property regardless of state statutes. Additionally, why would one want to do so? I don't want to demean or confront anyone here. However, take it from those who have been there...property is nothing. Life is everything.

[Garand Illusion]

I have a 40k + starting salary for me when I graduate already.

At least I figured your age about right.

Good luck with the world, kid, if you define a "Successful" person as someone who makes $120,000 a year. With a starting salary like that you're probably an engineer, and are likely to top out on the low side of 6 figures. To make the Big money you need to be a business major, but you'll probably start out below $40 K a year as a business major and have to work your way up.

You do need to work on your reading skills. No one has backpedaled -- you just made outrageous claims and then when people reiterated their previous positions you attacked them as back pedaling.

As for the rest of you unsuccessful people who only make $40,000 or less ... why the heck do you even bother?

[tsavo]

That's what I've been saying, apparently a lot of people don't value their life more than a car. It bothers me that some people here seem to think a ccw permit is a license to kill, or to act as a LEO, and it's isnt either of the 2. A ccw permit doesn't give you anymore rights than anybody else except you are allowed to carry your gun concealed. Any normal person can use deadly force to protect themselves from death. My ccw instructor was a court certified expert in the use of deadly force, and has been a police officer for 38 years.

[tsavo]

Actually my major is accounting, and I have some family connections at the firm I will be starting at. Nice assumption, though. I don't mean that people who make less than 120k a year aren't successful. I just mean that in the corporate world a salary of 100k or more a year is considered to be the starting point of wealth.

[Blackwater OPS]

reguarding case law; A jury renders a verdict(guilty or not-guilty) based on the facts of the case and instructions from the judge. The judges instructions are based on STATUTE not case law which plays an entirely different role in the legal process that is to complicated to explain here, bottom line the law is CLEAR homicide to prevent a felony is justifiable and a person accused of a homicide appearing to be justified(as in there is any reasonable doubt that it might be) MUST be discharged. This thread is pointless IMHO. Tsavo, god forbid you ever have to take a human life, you will then have some ground to stand on, until then don't talk about what you don't understand.

[tsavo]

So therefore, you must say yes to this question based on what you just said. Stealing a car is a felony. Your neighbors car is being hotwired in his driveway. You walk up to the drivers side and put a gun to the thiefs head and blow his brains out all over the passenger seat. You used deadly force to prevent a felony, and you're telling me that you think that you're gonna walk away from this?

[Garand Illusion]

Actually my major is accounting, and I have some family connections at the firm I will be starting at. Nice assumption, though. I don't mean that people who make less than 120k a year aren't successful. I just mean that in the corporate world a salary of 100k or more a year is considered to be the starting point of wealth.

Yup -- going to work for Daddy's company should make you successfull pretty quick. How about this for an idea -- instead of going to work for a company with "family connections," why not go out and try to make it on your own? That way when you get 120K a year (and I'm not saying you won't, lots of people do) you'll have no one to credit with that success but yourself. If you use family connections, your success with always have an asterisk next to it. "Billy makes over a hundred thousand a year. Of course *snicker* he did use family connections to get there."

Going back to your post on this ... whatever is consisdered the starting point of wealth, you were talking abou ta 10,000 car.

A person making better than 6 figures a year probably has a car worth more than 10,000. A $35,000 SUV is more like it. And while it's undoubtedly insured, hat still represents several years of discretionary income.

And since the average person (not successful person) makes more like 40,000 a year, perhaps you should speak to the average person and not the 5% or so of Americans that make this salary.

My figures stand. For the average person, a $10k car is about 5 years of discretionary income.

Is that worth going to jail for? Of course not.

Is it worth fighting for? If you live in a state that allows it AND you feel physically capable of doing so, DAMN RIGHT!

We're not like pansy Europeans who have to stand with their arms crossed and whimper while others steal the things they've worked for. We're Americans -- a country of street fighters who haven't had their cajones totally removed.

And you're right ... CCW ONLY gives us the right to defend our lives (with maybe an exceptional state or 2) but at least in my state, if I'm trying to physicall stop someone from committing a felony and they turn things around so they are endangering my life I AM allowed to defend my life with lethal force (i.e. a handgun) and it's not the same as if I picked a fight in a bar and then drew my gun when it went bad.

That's all anyone is saying here.

[Derius_T]

Harley Quinn Wrote:

I would shoot a round into the ground before I would approach.

I haven't seen anyone repond to this, but NEVER do that. That would be idiotic to the extreme. Now police are responding to a shots fired call, and when they get there they see you with a drawn gun. BAD IDEA. YOU ONLY FIRE THAT GUN IN SELF DEFENSE. Not to frighten or warn the BG. You are looking at serious trouble legally if you do.


As far as the rest of the advise given for the questions asked by the poster, most have been covered rationally and logically, and legally.

(man I can't spell today)

[tsavo]

Garand Illusion, that was great for a laugh, thanks. Networking is the number 1 way to be successful in business besides a good education. Both combined are even better. I only plan on starting my career where I have my connections. I plan on opening my own business someday, there's absolutely no reason not to use connections to get started. You would be a fool if you didn't.

[leadcounsel]

Well put Garand Illusion: +1 for accurately stating Colorado law.

Laws do differ in various states. Speaking in general terms, you have the right to use deadly force ONLY if you are protecting your LIFE or the LIFE of another. You generally cannot use deadly force to protect property and law abiding people have gone to jail for long sentences for shooting car thieves.

Now, as Garand put it, if you wanted to stop a theft, you could approach with a weapon in hand and order the BG to abort his crimes. Then, IF the situation escalates and the BG threatens deadly force, you are within your rights to protect yourself.

In a situation where you don't feel warranted in shooting, I would be very cautious about trying to detain a criminal for a variety of reasons.
1. It may take many minutes for the police to arrive. In that time, the suspect will probably make an attempt to flee or overtake you and you'll be forced to then decide whether to shoot and it will become a very complicated and messy situation and all of your actions will be scrutinized;
2. The BG may have friends who attack you when you're trained on the BG;
3. Bystanders won't understand what's going on and may think YOU are the BG or worse even shoot you in defense of the BG!

My advice is probably if it's just property, let it go or confront the BG with a weapon ready, but if he runs let him go and report it to the police. If the BG escalates to deadly force, shoot him to protect yourself. If the BG surrenders, tell him to lay in a prone position on the ground with limbs outspread and DO NOT approach him but DO call the police. IF he flees, let him. It's just property and you WILL go to jail in most states for shooting to protect property.

NOW, inside your house is another matter. Check you state law but many states give you the right to kill a burglar "if you believed he was going to commit a crime in the house."

Quinn posted "I would shoot a round into the ground." From other postings Quinn has no credibility and I would NOT take his advice. If you ever pull the trigger on your gun you better make D@mn sure that you are shooting in defense of your life the the life of another, and you better be shooting the attacker. Shooting into the ground could would presumably be to scare someone that is not threatening your life and is a gravely bad idea. First, an unjustified 'warning' shot, even into the ground, is called 'Aggrevated assault with a deadly weapon' and carries severe prison sentences. Second, a ricochet could kill any person and you WILL go to prison on a negligent homicide charge because you were not shooting in self defense. I recall hearing of a person (I don't recall if it was a cop or civilian) that gave a warning shot in the ground in front of the BG and the ricochet hit the BG and killed him. The shooter went to prison for an unjustified murder.

To address the reason why you cannot kill over property -- It's really a pretty good public policy reason in general. We value life, even a scumbag's life, more than property. Everyone here has stolen something in their lifetime, even as a youth. Did you deserve to be shot and killed for it? Of course not. Property can be replaced. Now, if the BG is stealing your wallet at gunpoint, that's a different story. The other reason is that people can be mistaken about property theft: Here's an example. Say you are up late at night watching TV and you happen to see an unfamiliar man with a slim jim trying to break into your neighbor's Honda in the driveway. You get your pistol and walk over there and shout some commands at him but he doesn't respond and keeps working away... so, you blast him in the chest. Turns out your neighbor locked his keys in his car and his daughter's new boyfriend (who you did not recognize) moonlights as an automobile roadside lockout tech and came over to help him and he is wearing headphones and didn't hear your commands, and the neighbor went inside to use the bathroom and therefore wasn't visible to you. You've just committed murder over a property misunderstanding and will be spending the next 25 years in prison. It's a lose/lose situation.

[Doug.38PR]

You are also wrong. The bottom line is that anyone who thinks TX law allows them to shoot someone for stealing is almost certainly going to go to jail if they act under those assumptions. It's not that simple by a long shot. If you want to have some "fun", try writing up a short post that describes when it is legal to shoot someone for stealing your neighbors's car. I'll bet you get bored and/or frustrated long before you've taken all the legal requirements into account. And even then, when you're done, and if you get it perfectly right, don't forget 9.06. You can still be sued even if your actions were completely within the law.

John,
believe it or not, I agree with you. But I think you misunderstand me. I didn't mean to imply that I think I can shoot somebody "FOR stealing" as though I am on a vengance quest. The law, as you properly cut and pasted for our view, pretty much supports what I have been saying in the midst of all it's jibberish. What I am saying, is that you have the right to STOP someone from stealing or damaging your property with deadly force if NO OTHER OPTIONS are available. I'm not saying I should be able to walk out the door and up to a car thief and planting a bullet in his head while he is busy hotwiring.

Yes, the law is slopply written, yes there are a lot of loopholes for scumbag trial attorneys to go through (most notably 9.06). But I'd have to worry about that bridge when I got to it.

[Blackwater OPS]

Tsavo, why dont you READ my post before reponding to it. If after reading it you still cannot understand the difference between justifiable homicide and cold blooded murder than I am glad you would not take any action at all because you would be just as likely to take the WRONG one.