Using Deadly Force

[Frank Ettin]

Originally Posted by 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....

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

[Frank Ettin]

Originally Posted by onthejon55

...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.

Originally Posted by onthejon55

...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?

[Frank Ettin]

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

[Frank Ettin]

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.

[Frank Ettin]

Originally Posted by onthejon55

...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.

[Frank Ettin]

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=jAU...um=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.

[Frank Ettin]

[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]

Originally Posted by buzz_knox

...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