To use your gun or not to use it.

[Lohman446]

Well "Legalities" aside. I would have a very hard time justifying shooting a kid over a lawn mower.

I think the gun owning/carrying portion of the population needs to have a stronger moral compass then the avg guy. Our Rights are under attack and viewed thru a microscope.

What i do today, can effect your rights tomorrow. We all need to be cognizant of that fact.

Just because you CAN shoot someone, doesn't mean you SHOULD shoot someone.

You have a point and one that I can agree with from a moral and practical standpoint. A questionable justifiable shooting is likely to alter your life significantly from a social and legal standpoint (ask Zimmerman).

However I cannot place my morality, as a question of morality, on others. We as a society have designed a series of laws that represent the morality of society that we are willing to enforce. I don't think I can reasonably argue, from a moral standpoint, that others should follow a higher standard. I can point out how my own morality might influence my decisions. It would be, in my opinion, unethical to demand others follow the same morals (except as agreed upon through the legislative process by our representatives).

Legal and moral implications I think there are major practical considerations to be had. A single individual, armed with a (often concealed) handgun and no back-up, does not, IMO, have a great enough expectation of success to use said handgun as anything but a last resort. I think, in consideration of the situations and limited in the effectiveness of communication over forums, many people come of believing the use of force is pretty one sided and certain to be successful. I differ in that I see it as a desperate last resort that is likely to fail.

[TailGator]

My answer to such questions has been and will continue to be, "I will do whatever I think maximizes the chance of survival for myself, my family, and other innocents present."

It is certainly true that some robberies and carjackings end in murder. If a robber is going to take my stuff and leave with it, the chances of survival of all concerned increases by my not escalating a calm situation into one with lead flying around. If there are indications that the scene is going to end in violence, such as a robber moving his victims to another location, taking action at an opportune moment may well tilt the odds toward survival for all but the bad actor. (I ready somewhere that a BG moving people decreases the chance of survival by the victims by an impressive number, but I don't remember the number.)

In the instance of a carjacker, I think the earliest possible action would be best in most circumstances, because the bad actor is generally going to be armed and have a finger on a trigger. The situation is already so dire that it can hardly go worse, and your time to react is going to be close to zero.

I cannot explain but will not discount the intuitive responses of humans. The mind is amazingly complex, and if you have a feeling that things are about to go bad, it is likely because you are unconsciously picking up cues that the bad actor is giving of his/her intent. I personally have resolved to act on that intuition if I am ever in the situation, if other aspects of legality are fulfilled.

[Grizz12]

It was my understanding, at least at one point, in Texas deadly force could be used to stop the commission of any felony. I have never lived in or visited Texas and do not often have to worry about the "bare minimum requirement to use deadly force" but I recall being surprised when I had heard it.

Texas does not have a problem with lawn mowers getting stolen, wanna guess why?

[zincwarrior]

Please cite the statue where theft of a lawn mower is a felony in Texas.

There's a sudden bit of inappropriateness appearing.
Texas does have some unusual permissions regarding use of (deadly) force but are somewhat sane and tied to our western character. For example
is the theft of vehicles at night-night being the key word. The other is the infamous "he needed killin your honor" spousal defense that women have. I've not found it in the statues but the Wife assures me it is there.

However that is specific to Texas and likely should be left there as we're talking more policy level outside overall. Even those-even if found not guilty will result in severe costs: emotionally and financially.

[FireForged]

If someone is waving a gun around and demanding my wallet? probably.

If he gets far enough away from me and I think I can make a run for it, I would rather do that than get into a gunfight. Giving my wallet would not make me feel better about my survival, its not about the wallet.

[K_Mac]

I can't speak for Texas, but in Illinois if the value of the lawnmower is greater than $500 it's theft is a class 3 felony. That amount is $300 for retail theft, and there is no minimum if the property is taken from the person of another. While Illinois has a history of gun control that is counter to the 2A, the laws for protection of property are clear: Lethal force can be used to stop felony theft of personal property.

I am not advocating for killing the neighbor kid while he is stealing a box of tools from your garage or anyone else. I do believe that home invasion, carjacking, armed robbery or any other violent act that puts me or those in my charge at risk is going to be met with all the force I am capable of. I will go to extraordinary lengths to avoid these situations, but once there, all bets are off.

[Frank Ettin]

Originally Posted by Grizz12

Texas does not have a problem with lawn mowers getting stolen, wanna guess why?

Once again we see the usual misinformation about Texas law. As one of our members, and a lawyer in Texas, explains to us here:

Originally Posted by Bartholomew Roberts

...While Texas law does allow deadly force in defense of property, it only does so in fairly limited circumstances and that shooting in defense of property often leads to legal fees that far outweigh what the property would cost to replace. Shooting in defense of your NEIGHBOR's property is even more limited. Here is the relevant law, I have highlighted some sections that can cause trouble:


Sec. 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.


Sec. 9.42. DEADLY FORCE TO PROTECT PROPERTY.[/url] 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.

Sec. 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....

and here:

Originally Posted by Bartholomew Roberts

In order to use Deadly Force to protect property in Texas, you must first meet all the legal requirements to use force under Section 9.41.

At that point, if you can convince a Texas Grand Jury (and you will be facing one if you shoot somebody) that you had a reasonable belief that the land or property cannot be protected or recovered by any other means; or 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, then you may use deadly force to protect property in the following circumstances:

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

Note the parts in bold. You'll also have to convince the Grand Jury that you had a reasonable belief that using deadly force to protect property was immediately necessary, in addition to the other things you'll need to show them.

So let's look at a few areas where you could be in big trouble if the Grand Jury's view of the matter doesn't line up with yours

1. Land or property could not be protected or recovered by other means (or substantial risk of death or serious injury)
2. Reasonable belief
3. Immediately necessary

If the Grand Jury disagrees with your call on any of those points, you are going to be looking at criminal charges. In actual practice, Texas grand juries have been very lenient on the issue of deadly force to protect property; but considering what is at stake - that is a big bet to make over a color TV or a car stereo.

Originally Posted by K_Mac

...While Illinois has a history of gun control that is counter to the 2A, the laws for protection of property are clear: Lethal force can be used to stop felony theft of personal property....

Cite the law please.

[Deaf Smith]

It was my understanding, at least at one point, in Texas deadly force could be used to stop the commission of any felony. I have never lived in or visited Texas and do not often have to worry about the "bare minimum requirement to use deadly force" but I recall being surprised when I had heard it.

Lohman, here in Texas IF property is being stolen AND you have NO REASONABLE WAY TO PROTECT OR RECOVER IT, then you can use lethal force to retrieve it. BUT, you can still be sued for wrongful death.

Texas Penal Code § 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.

What is more, since you claimed you had to use lethal force (and killed some one) you have admitted to HOMICIDE. It is now your burden of proof to show the jury why you had to kill them. If you cannot prove there was no reasonable way to get the property back or protect it, then you are up the creek.

Deaf

[K_Mac]

(720 ILCS 5/Art. 7 heading)
ARTICLE 7. JUSTIFIABLE USE OF FORCE; EXONERATION

(720 ILCS 5/7-1) (from Ch. 38, par. 7-1)
Sec. 7-1. Use of force in defense of person.
(a) A person is justified in the use of force against another when and to the extent that he reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to defend himself or another against such other's imminent use of unlawful force. However, he is justified in the use of force which is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm only if he reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or another, or the commission of a forcible felony.
(b) In no case shall any act involving the use of force justified under this Section give rise to any claim or liability brought by or on behalf of any person acting within the definition of "aggressor" set forth in Section 7-4 of this Article, or the estate, spouse, or other family member of such a person, against the person or estate of the person using such justified force, unless the use of force involves willful or wanton misconduct.
(Source: P.A. 93-832, eff. 7-28-04.)

(720 ILCS 5/7-2) (from Ch. 38, par. 7-2)
Sec. 7-2. Use of force in defense of dwelling.
(a) A person is justified in the use of force against another when and to the extent that he reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to prevent or terminate such other's unlawful entry into or attack upon a dwelling. However, he is justified in the use of force which is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm only if:
(1) The entry is made or attempted in a violent,

riotous, or tumultuous manner, and he reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent an assault upon, or offer of personal violence to, him or another then in the dwelling, or
(2) He reasonably believes that such force is

necessary to prevent the commission of a felony in the dwelling.
(b) In no case shall any act involving the use of force justified under this Section give rise to any claim or liability brought by or on behalf of any person acting within the definition of "aggressor" set forth in Section 7-4 of this Article, or the estate, spouse, or other family member of such a person, against the person or estate of the person using such justified force, unless the use of force involves willful or wanton misconduct.
(Source: P.A. 93-832, eff. 7-28-04.)

(720 ILCS 5/7-3) (from Ch. 38, par. 7-3)
Sec. 7-3. Use of force in defense of other property.
(a) A person is justified in the use of force against another when and to the extent that he reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to prevent or terminate such other's trespass on or other tortious or criminal interference with either real property (other than a dwelling) or personal property, lawfully in his possession or in the possession of another who is a member of his immediate family or household or of a person whose property he has a legal duty to protect. However, he is justified in the use of force which is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm only if he reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.
(b) In no case shall any act involving the use of force justified under this Section give rise to any claim or liability brought by or on behalf of any person acting within the definition of "aggressor" set forth in Section 7-4 of this Article, or the estate, spouse, or other family member of such a person, against the person or estate of the person using such justified force, unless the use of force involves willful or wanton misconduct.
(Source: P.A. 93-832, eff. 7-28-04.)

[K_Mac]

One more to clarify:
(720 ILCS 5/2-8) (from Ch. 38, par. 2-8)
Sec. 2-8. "Forcible felony". "Forcible felony" means treason, first degree murder, second degree murder, predatory criminal sexual assault of a child, aggravated criminal sexual assault, criminal sexual assault, robbery, burglary, residential burglary, aggravated arson, arson, aggravated kidnaping, kidnaping, aggravated battery resulting in great bodily harm or permanent disability or disfigurement and any other felony which involves the use or threat of physical force or violence against any individual.
(Source: P.A. 88-277; 89-428, eff. 12-13-95; 89-462, eff. 5-29-96.)

[TXAZ]

Frank (as usual) nails the law in Texas. I'd like to throw in the back side of that.
Travis County's (very liberal, gun hating Austin) County Attorney has made it pretty clear that virtually every shooting, no matter how 'good' it was, will be sent to the grand jury, and likely to a criminal trial.

Why? They hate having armed citizens, and this is one way to encourage people not to possess or use guns. They're the most obvious and outspoken, and a few other cities would also make me (and likely others) think about using lethal force.

[Frank Ettin]

K_Mac, you wrote this:

Originally Posted by K_Mac

...Lethal force can be used to stop felony theft of personal property....

But you are wrong.

When I asked you to cite the law, you cited (emphasis added):

Originally Posted by K_Mac

Sec. 7-1. Use of force in defense of person.

(a) A person is justified in the use of force against another when and to the extent that he reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to defend himself or another against such other's imminent use of unlawful force. However, he is justified in the use of force which is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm only if he reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or another, or the commission of a forcible felony...

and (emphasis added):

Originally Posted by K_Mac

Sec. 7-2. Use of force in defense of dwelling.

(a) A person is justified in the use of force against another when and to the extent that he reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to prevent or terminate such other's unlawful entry into or attack upon a dwelling. However, he is justified in the use of force which is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm only if:

(1) The entry is made or attempted in a violent, riotous, or tumultuous manner, and he reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent an assault upon, or offer of personal violence to, him or another then in the dwelling, or

(2) He reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent the commission of a felony in the dwelling....

and (emphasis added):

Originally Posted by K_Mac

Sec. 7-3. Use of force in defense of other property.

(a) A person is justified in the use of force against another when and to the extent that he reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to prevent or terminate such other's trespass on or other tortious or criminal interference with either real property (other than a dwelling) or personal property, lawfully in his possession or in the possession of another who is a member of his immediate family or household or of a person whose property he has a legal duty to protect. However, he is justified in the use of force which is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm only if he reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent the commission of a forcible felony....

And, as you pointed out, a "forcible felony" is:

Sec. 2-8. "Forcible felony".

"Forcible felony" means treason, first degree murder, second degree murder, predatory criminal sexual assault of a child, aggravated criminal sexual assault, criminal sexual assault, robbery, burglary, residential burglary, aggravated arson, arson, aggravated kidnaping, kidnaping, aggravated battery resulting in great bodily harm or permanent disability or disfigurement and any other felony which involves the use or threat of physical force or violence against any individual.

So none of the statutes you've cited authorize the use of lethal force to stop felony theft of personal property in general.

[K_Mac]

Frank, I agree that lethal force in general has to meet a more violent standard outside my dwelling, although breaking into an outbuilding satisfies the tumultuous entry requirement. Having entered in such a manner, I have reason to believe that I am in serious danger. Whether that satisfies the legal requirements for use of lethal force would have to be determined by the legal system, based on all the circumstances of the case. Inside my dwelling the case for lethal force in protection of property is far more easily made.

[Frank Ettin]

Originally Posted by K_Mac

Frank, I agree that lethal force in general has to meet a more violent standard outside my dwelling, ...

Cut it out. You made an incorrect statement about the law in Illinois regarding the use of lethal force. You claimed that:

Originally Posted by K_Mac

..Lethal force can be used to stop felony theft of personal property....

That is not true.

Providing misinformation on legal matters is irresponsible. You could get someone into a lot of trouble. If you don't know what you're talking about, please don't spread erroneous information.

Originally Posted by K_Mac

...breaking into an outbuilding satisfies the tumultuous entry requirement.....

Cite the law.

[K_Mac]

I have sited the law and given my opinion. I think that burglary as defined below satisfies the forcible felony requirement:
(720 ILCS 5/19-1) (from Ch. 38, par. 19-1)
Sec. 19-1. Burglary.
(a) A person commits burglary when without authority he or she knowingly enters or without authority remains within a building, housetrailer, watercraft, aircraft, motor vehicle, railroad car, or any part thereof, with intent to commit therein a felony or theft. This offense shall not include the offenses set out in Section 4-102 of the Illinois Vehicle Code.
I am not an attorney and my opinions regarding the law are my own. It is not my intention to give legal advice to anyone. I enjoy the discussion of the law here and I appreciate the wisdom and knowledge I find here. Thanks Frank.

[Frank Ettin]

Originally Posted by K_Mac

...I am not an attorney and my opinions regarding the law are my own.....

Yes, we know you're not an attorney. And while your opinions are your own and you are entitled to your opinions, you are obviously not qualified to opine reliably on matters of law. All opinions are not equal.

And whether you intend to give legal advice or not, the sad fact is that it's predictable that some people will pay attention to your opinions.

Originally Posted by K_Mac

...I think that burglary as defined below satisfies the forcible felony requirement....

You posted the statutory definition in Illinois of "forcible felony", and burglary is listed as a forcible felony. But there are forms of theft which are not burglary, and burglary doesn't necessarily involve theft.

So you were still wrong when you claimed that:

Originally Posted by K_Mac

...Lethal force can be used to stop felony theft of personal property....

[Brit]

There are so many situations,that could happen in the two cited incidents, Car jack/Restaurant Robbery? It is mindboggling, me personally? As I am most likely with my Wife, whose life is more important than mine!

So my assessment of risk to my Lady would drive my actions. Is this understood?

So faced with a young person, armed with a pistol, and a bag for cell phones and wallets, "Could you please just take the cash, and leave my ID?" And in reaching for my "Wallet" I would shoot him in the face!

That is as far as you can predict the outcome, as I can shoot with either hand or both, from sitting, kneeling or prone. Not to worried about being able to hit a target basically 6" round from 5 or 6 feet.

Now as the saying goes, the SXXX would hit the fan.

[45_auto]

Originally Posted by brit

As I am most likely with my Wife, whose life is more important than mine!

Originally Posted by brit

And in reaching for my "Wallet" I would shoot him in the face!

Your wife's life (which the robber would take by shooting her while you're bringing up your gun) is worth less to you than your wallet?

[Don P]

I’ve always felt I would never fire unless someone pointed a gun at me first, but this often happens in a robbery or carjacking. Yes, I realize most of the time they don’t shoot their victims, but sometimes they do. I suspect in the armed robbery scenario I would probably go along, but not sure I wouldn’t fight back in a carjacking.

I highlighted and bold texted my question/thought on that portion of the statement.
Do you think you could draw from concealment before being shot (gun is pointed at you) your words. Just curious?????

[Lohman446]

I highlighted and bold texted my question/thought on that portion of the statement.
Do you think you could draw from concealment before being shot (gun is pointed at you) your words. Just curious?????

I think most of us are hoping our adversary is uncommitted in that he or she is unwilling to continue the aggressive act once it is met by force or incompetent. Many of us are really hoping, should it come down to it, that both are true.

Am I able to draw from a concealed position (let alone seated), fire, and incapacitate a competent and determined individual who already has a weapon draw and is paying attention to me before that individual can fire? I highly doubt it.

And this is at least partly a flaw in my position even though I maintain that position. Your best chance to successfully (success involving you personally escaping unharmed) use force in the restaurant scenario is likely when your adversary is not entirely focused on you and is dealing with other patrons. Of course the moment you use force should that adversary have a partner that you have failed to identify the tables turn on you.

Edit: Before I am being accused of seeing only the negatives. If the situation arises where I do draw my gun I am reasonably competent with it. I also have two goals: to allow my family to escape the situation unharmed and, if possible, to escape unharmed. No one knows exactly how the body will react but from what I understand from martial arts training is the winner of a fight is often not the person who can hit the best but the person who can react the best to a hit. I believe most criminals are not committed to the action they are taking once their life is at high risk. In a fight with a citizen I believe most of them would rather retreat then continue the fight. If I have engaged in the fight I have determined retreat is not a safe option. At risk of sounding like a certain candidate and not going into details "I am going to WIN". Most of those of us that carried concealed are only going to use our weapons once we are committed fully to winning and have no other option. I hope that my adversary, should the situation ever arise, is not committed and seeks an option to end violence quickly - either retreat or surrender. Once I have deployed violence I am committed to using violence until one of those options are taken or one (or both) of us are no longer capable of inflicting violence.

[44 AMP]

Who would want to lead a life similar to George Zimmerman's living Hell?

That case is unique in several aspects, the main one being a strong effort by various groups (including the media) to turn a self defense shooting into racially motivated murder. It failed, Zimmerman was not convicted of murder, but many people still believe it was. Personally, I think he was a fool, and his behavior since the incident doesn't change my mind on that.

Other side of the coin, sort of, a few months ago, a man wielding a hatchet entered a Seattle area coffeehouse, and sliced the clerk's belly. As he was winding up for another swing, a legally armed civilian (CCW permit holder), fired one round, killing the attacker. The attacker was a minority with a long criminal history.

The CCW holder, talked to the police, and refused to talk to the press. His name is still, to date, unknown (not reported). The police said it was a good shoot, he was a hero. The clerk said he was a hero, and showed off the gash in his stomach (which through the grace of providence was only a quarter inch deep).

That fellow did what needed to be done, to save a life and likely lives. The incident disappeared from the news within a few days, and we have not heard anything about it, since.

The details of each individual situation matter, and no blanket question can have an accurate, truthful answer.

[Brit]

45 Auto.

Originally Posted by brit
As I am most likely with my Wife, whose life is more important than mine!

Quote:
Originally Posted by brit
And in reaching for my "Wallet" I would shoot him in the face!

Your wife's life (which the robber would take by shooting her while you're bringing up your gun) is worth less to you than your wallet?

Well Sir, as my Wife knows what is going to happen, as soon as my arm comes up, she will lie down on the bench.

The criminal was told stuff, he has to think about "can I keep my ID?"

I always face the entrance, my Wife always faces me.

The criminal will be facing me, yes? I will take my chances on his expertise with his possibly never fired handgun. I know my skill.
If he shoots me, I hope he does not shoot something I can not do without!

Faced with threat, I will fight, I have done all my life. And I am still here.

Who would feel threatened by a white bearded old Chap?

[K_Mac]

Who would feel threatened by a white bearded old Chap?

Brit, I learned a long time ago that you have to be very careful around old silverbacks. Now I are one!

[4V50 Gary]

Threat of serious bodily injury or death, yes I'd resort to force up to and including deadly force.

[Lohman446]

Threat of serious bodily injury or death, yes I'd resort to force up to and including deadly force.

That begs the question. Outside of restraining a child or such presented with a threat of bodily injury or death is there any level of force below deadly force one would resort to?

I don't shoot with the intent to kill anyone - I shoot with the intent to stop the aggressors violent actions. However shooting center of mass has a distinct possibility of leading to death and I accept that. I'm not "pistol whipping" someone, putting them in a restraint hold, or shooting for an extremity or weapon. If I use force I have one level of force available and that is the use of a firearm to center of mass.

You know what, if you don't mind I'm going to ask that as a question in another thread