Hypothetical

[Rpg]

You have to be dumb as a box of rocks to shoot at a moving vehicle.

This is real life, not the movies.

 

[wnderr]

Be careful when you read your state statute and think "use of force" means any type of force. That is often not the case. Statutes often specify when "use of force" can be used and when "use of deadly force or force which may cause great bodily harm". Those are completely 2 different standards. Usually just the wording "use of force" does not include use of deadly force or force which may cause great bodily harm. Often times untrained people will read a statute that says "use of force" and they assume that means they can use any force necessary including deadly force. Not so. If you aren't really trained and familiar with reading and understanding statutes then don't assume what you read is really the statute. Often in another section will be something more relevant and applicable. Too often a person reads what the first thing and assume that's all there is to it or they only read what they want or think their statute says.
For example, here's IL's statute. Note the difference:
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.

Note that it's not just any felony. It specifies a forcible felony. That is another error untrained people make. They do not know the difference between a felony and a forcible felony. Most felonies are not forcible. A second DUI offence is a felony but use of deadly force is not justified. Shoplifting or writing a bad check for $300 of merchandise is a felony but deadly force is not justified. Felony is not the same as forcible felony.
Also, just because a statute still remains on the books does not mean the statute is in force. Court rulings may have made a specific statute unconstitutional and therefore invalid. That ruling does not automatically remove the statute from the books. It takes the legislature to remove the statute. That's just an administrative matter. However, the court ruling makes the statute unenforceable and illegal.

Sometimes, it's just not fun, living here in Illinois.

 

[Okie21]

In my opinion, shooting at a fleeing vehicle would be a bad idea. Get a plate #, call 911. And I hope the victim's trailer is insured.
Shooting at a moving vehicle that's trying to get away is a bad idea, and illegal in some places. Also, what if he stops and returns fire and he's got more firepower than you. Or what if there are 2 or 3 armed bad guys returning fire?

Sent from my Moto G (5S) Plus using Tapatalk

 

[Pondoro]

I had more pictured it as, someone looks outside and sees a miscreant hooking his truck to their trailer. Thinks to himself, "I'd better not shoot him." Walks to the front and puts one in the radiator from close range. This is going to tick off the perpetrator, without really endangering him. Obviously our good guy retires, or tries to retire, from the scene. Now, did the home/trailer/gun owner start a fight? Or prevent a felony?

 

[misswired]

You have to be dumb as a box of rocks to shoot at a moving vehicle.

This is real life, not the movies.

Two different local guys recently fired a single warning shot at the tailgate of trucks with rifles... The guy last year at Christmas killed his son, he thought his truck was being stolen.

The guy a couple years ago was firing his warning shot at the tailgate of two lost brothers whom he thought might be burglars. They never exited the vehicle and were driving away after the man shouted.... he killed the passenger.

 

[murphydog]

I had more pictured it as, someone looks outside and sees a miscreant hooking his truck to their trailer. Thinks to himself, "I'd better not shoot him." Walks to the front and puts one in the radiator from close range. This is going to tick off the perpetrator, without really endangering him. Obviously our good guy retires, or tries to retire, from the scene. Now, did the home/trailer/gun owner start a fight? Or prevent a felony?

If the trailer owner has that much time, get a smartphone, take a video and keep the gun in the holster in case the theft escalates to a violent threat. There might also be time to call 911 and warn the thief to leave...

 

[Ivan the Butcher]

In Delaware County, Ohio (where I lived at the time): A farmer caught 2 or 3 boys syphoning gas from his equipment. As they sped off, he shot at them with a target model 1911. The responding deputies placed him under arrest for numerous law violations, which ended up with his being tried for attempted murder.

During his defense, it was shown that in the Army, he had been an Expert marksman with a 1911 and that he was trying to stop their getting away. The 7 shots all struck the car in the area of the right rear tire, including 2 in the hub cap. The jury of 12 of my fellow rural county citizens found him NOT GUILTY!

Ivan

 

[Rastoff]

So if the thief tries to run me over when I try to stop him, then I can use deadly force?

Anywhere in the world this would be legal, but that's not part of this scenario.

 

[F75gunslinger]

I know here in order to use deadly force you have to be in fear for your life. So if someone is driving away with your property, get a good description of the vehicle and person if you can and wave goodbye to it. Depending on where you live, many towns and cities have ordinances against discharging a firearm withing city/town limits. So even if you aren't shooting at the person you are violating the law.

 

[Wise_A]

What if you walk out of Walmart, you're going thru the parking lot just in time to catch some bum with your car door open ransacking thru your vehicle. You left your loaded Ruger P89 in the glovebox. Would it be reasonable in that situation to assume the bum is armed and would that be reason to shoot?

(Disclaimer: I do not own a Ruger p89 and I would never leave a firearm loaded or unloaded in a vehicle unless it was secured inside a lockbox such as a NanoVault 200 or similar.)

RGV, I like you and respect you, but this is what we call "looking for an excuse". I'm not trying to put you down, I only want to point out that I hear this all the time in classes, frequently from otherwise normal individuals, and it always elicits an eye-roll from me.

The correct question is never "can I shoot?"--rather, it's "must I shoot?".

So--must I shoot?

Well, the subject doesn't have the gun yet, and they haven't shown any aggression towards me. I could simply walk away. Since walking away is a safe option, there's no imperative to use lethal force. If there's no imperative to use lethal force, then lethal force is not justified.

Now, the obvious objection is that the subject is in imminent possession of my deadly weapon. There are three problems with that objection:

(1) There's no visible sign of aggression.

(2) The subject may not even be aware the weapon is present.

(3) There's no intent to use the weapon, should it be acquired.

This is in contrast to, say, using lethal force to prevent being disarmed in a fight. In such a situation, the subject has already shown aggression. He's also shown that he's aware a weapon is present, and is actively trying to acquire it. It's reasonable to assume that he won't suddenly turn into Mother Teresa once he has a pistol.

 

[robertrwalsh]

In CA (and many other states) discharge of a firearm to protect personal property is legally prohibited. That's what this would be. In addition things such as disabling shots fired at vehicles have the bad habit of hitting people. The scenario you describe would generally speaking NOT justify the discharge of a firearm (IMHO).

 

[Sol-Invictus]

Be careful when you read your state statute and think "use of force" means any type of force. That is often not the case. Statutes often specify when "use of force" can be used and when "use of deadly force or force which may cause great bodily harm". Those are completely 2 different standards. Usually just the wording "use of force" does not include use of deadly force or force which may cause great bodily harm. Often times untrained people will read a statute that says "use of force" and they assume that means they can use any force necessary including deadly force. Not so. If you aren't really trained and familiar with reading and understanding statutes then don't assume what you read is really the statute. Often in another section will be something more relevant and applicable. Too often a person reads what the first thing and assume that's all there is to it or they only read what they want or think their statute says.
For example, here's IL's statute. Note the difference:
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.

Note that it's not just any felony. It specifies a forcible felony. That is another error untrained people make. They do not know the difference between a felony and a forcible felony. Most felonies are not forcible. A second DUI offence is a felony but use of deadly force is not justified. Shoplifting or writing a bad check for $300 of merchandise is a felony but deadly force is not justified. Felony is not the same as forcible felony.
Also, just because a statute still remains on the books does not mean the statute is in force. Court rulings may have made a specific statute unconstitutional and therefore invalid. That ruling does not automatically remove the statute from the books. It takes the legislature to remove the statute. That's just an administrative matter. However, the court ruling makes the statute unenforceable and illegal.

This is the Illinois statute. Robbery, burglary, and residential burglary are all forcible felonies.

(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.)

Sent from my SM-T520 using Tapatalk

 

[fredj338]

Use of a firearm is deadly force. Once the bullet leave the barrel the shooter has no control over it.

Sent from my SM-T377V using Tapatalk

In many jurisdictions, presenting the gun & pointing it at someone is using deadly force, no shot required.

 

[fredj338]

Anywhere in the world this would be legal, but that's not part of this scenario.

Maybe. Guy is leaving with property & you place yourself into a position to be run over, are you defending yourself or threatening the thief just so you can shoot him? Yeah not so clear cut.

 

[fredj338]

This is the Illinois statute. Robbery, burglary, and residential burglary are all forcible felonies.

(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.)

Sent from my SM-T520 using Tapatalk

Yeah pretty thin considering burgalry requires entering a structure woth intent to steal, not stealing a trailer out of your drive. That is felony theft, not on the list. Many gta are pled down to mere joy riding.

 

[STCM(SW)]

I have posted this before.
Guy is loading his GM SUV with all his equipment for the day.
The SUV is running. He comes out and a BG is driving off with his SUV.
He fires a hand gun and hits the BG in the back of the head through the back window. It kills him.
Trial for second degree murder.
Jury of 11 woman & 1 man who happened to be a US Border patrol
man found him not guilty as the defend though he saw a gun in the BG's hand.
So, it does depend on where you live......

 

[Rastoff]

Maybe. Guy is leaving with property & you place yourself into a position to be run over, are you defending yourself or threatening the thief just so you can shoot him? Yeah not so clear cut.

No self-defense that ends in a death, or even just use of deadly force, will be clear cut. There are always mitigating circumstances. That is the question the jury will have to answer; was it justified.

So, it does depend on where you live......

Always. For every real case we can find where someone was found justified, we can probably find another case in a different jurisdiction, same circumstances, where they were found guilty.

 

[Yiogo]

No, not a good idea. She should stay in her house where it is safer. Call 911.

 

[shouldazagged]

I'm all out of popcorn, and a quart low on patience.

What it comes down to for me is that I do not own, and have never owned, anything worth shooting another human being for. And speaking just for me, I would have to be a cast iron bloody idiot to fire at a fleeing vehicle.

That's my law. Really simple, the way I like things. Don't have to peruse statutes looking for loopholes.

Carry on.

 

[Rustyt1953]

What it comes down to for me is that I do not own, and have never owned, anything worth shooting another human being for. And speaking just for me, I would have to be a cast iron bloody idiot to fire at a fleeing vehicle.

And, there you have it. Stuff is replaceable. My life is not.