Fire as a Weapon

[federali]

The recent social unrest quickly morphed into a social revolution, with arson being one of the principal weapons used. Anyone contemplating defending himself or his property against a firebomb attack must be intimately familiar with the definitions and use-of-force laws in his home state. Generally, you may use deadly force to prevent arson of an occupied dwelling. Does “dwelling” in your state include a motel room, a trailer, camper, boat, etc? Do you know what your state considers to be a dwelling?

If you elect to spend the night in your place of business, is your place of business also considered a dwelling? If you live on a farm, is the barn, garage and assorted outbuildings considered part of your dwelling? You need to check the definitions of your state penal codes for the answers.

 

[Kanewpadle]

The problem is, so may laws that are hastily enacted are too vague. And you need to hire Cajunlawyer to decipher it.

 

[SMSgt]

In FL, arson is a forcible felony, against which deadly force is allowed. Home, business, dwelling, dog house, nothing specified.

 

[Ziggy2525]

The recent social unrest quickly morphed into a social revolution, with arson being one of the principal weapons used. Anyone contemplating defending himself or his property against a firebomb attack must be intimately familiar with the definitions and use-of-force laws in his home state. Generally, you may use deadly force to prevent arson of an occupied dwelling. Does “dwelling” in your state include a motel room, a trailer, camper, boat, etc? Do you know what your state considers to be a dwelling?

If you elect to spend the night in your place of business, is your place of business also considered a dwelling? If you live on a farm, is the barn, garage and assorted outbuildings considered part of your dwelling? You need to check the definitions of your state penal codes for the answers.

First, IANAL. In Nebraska, being in your home or place of business defines whether you have a duty to retreat or not. Not if you can use deadly force or not. If you're outside your home/business and are under a deadly force attack that you can't safely retreat from, whether it's with fire or a butter knife, you can respond with deadly force.

 

[robertrwalsh]

Even CA allows the use of deadly force to protect real property in most circumstances.

 

[fatcat3]

Bleep the laws I'm taking care of me and mine. worry about the small poop later

 

[schutzen-jager]

N.J. odd regulations

here in PRNJ bb guns are regulated as full blown firearms - possession of slingshots , pea shooters , blow guns , + brass knuckles are forbidden under all circumstances ! - flame throwers are not regulated at all + no license required to own or use -

 

[Rastoff]

Even CA allows the use of deadly force to protect real property in most circumstances.

This is not correct. In fact, CA doesn't allow use of deadly force to protect property. Here is the actual law:

3476.Right to Defend Real or Personal Property
The owner [or possessor] of (real/ [or] personal) property may use
reasonable force to protect that property from imminent harm. [A
person may also use reasonable force to protect the property of a
(family member/guest/master/servant/ward) from immediate harm.]
Reasonable force means the amount of force that a reasonable person in
the same situation would believe is necessary to protect the property
from imminent harm.

Reasonable force is the operative action here. Do you think a CA jury will agree with killing someone for stealing a TV?



To the OP specifically, CA law says this:

The killing of one person by another may be justifiable when necessary to resist the attempt to commit a forcible and life-threatening crime, provided that a reasonable person in the same or similar situation would believe that

1. the person killed intended to commit a forcible and life-threatening crime;
2. there was imminent danger of such crime being accomplished; and
3. the person acted under the belief that such force was necessary to save himself or herself or another from death or a forcible and life-threatening crime . Murder, mayhem, rape and robbery are examples of forcible and life-threatening crimes.

In the case of arson, you would have to prove that the arsonist intended to kill or seriously injure someone if you used deadly force to stop them. This will be difficult to prove when talking about a closed business. Less difficult if it's a home.

The bottom line here is that you may defend yourself from deadly force with deadly force:

• If you shoot someone who is throwing a molotov cocktail at your barn, it might not go well for you.
• If you shoot someone who is throwing a molotov cocktail at your house with your family in it, that's justified.

 

[vytoland]

my weapon has fire.....

 

[robertrwalsh]

There is a difference between REAL property and PERSONAL property. Personal property is the mentioned TV. REAL property is your home.

 

[HOUSTON RICK]

A dwelling is an occupied structure. Texas law relatively liberally allows the use of deadly force in the protection of property (See Joe Horn case) particularly at night, but it seems to apply in broad daylight. Notwithstanding numerous protests by the usual agitators, Mr. Horn's daylight defense of his absent neighbor's property by shooting and killing two thieves (both of whom were miraculously just turning their lives around) did not result in prosecution even though Mr. Horn called the police and they told him to stand down. Of course, most folks around here are still not in the criminal enablement movement. If someone is setting your house, or your neighbor's house, on fire here, you can stop them with deadly force.

 

[Rastoff]

There is a difference between REAL property and PERSONAL property. Personal property is the mentioned TV. REAL property is your home.

If you're saying this to say that you can use deadly force to protect your real property in CA, you're still wrong.

Go back and read the law I posted again. It states real or personal property can be protected with reasonable force. Reasonable force, when life is not hanging in the balance, does not include deadly force.

Look, you may do what you want. The only reason I'm posting this is to alert anyone who reads it to what the law says and consequently, what they'll face should they go to court.

 

[Echo40]

Obviously I've read up on my local laws and fortunately reside in a state with fair laws regarding Self-Defense, so I really don't have to worry about defending myself breaking any laws.

That being said, laws would take a backseat to survival even if I did live in some state in which the laws were backwards favoring criminals over otherwise law-abiding citizens and would happily be the first to challenge such laws if need be. Frankly, I'll never understand men who are so concerned over the possibility of getting into legal trouble over defending themselves that they've all but decided to just let themselves be victimized rather than risk being taken to court. Honestly, I've seen guys on forums who seemingly do nothing but hang around threads spewing some of the most cowardly speeches whenever the subject of self-defense is raised that they're all but advising others to just surrender because shooting someone in self-defense is basically a one-way ticket to prison, so better to just let the home invader violate you and your family and hopefully decide not to kill you afterwards because you'll just get violated daily in prison. They'll go on and on about legal fees, apparently completely obvious to the fact that your money is worthless if you're dead and home invaders probably intend to rob you anyway. Honestly, if I didn't know better then I'd think that these guys are just professional thieves who spend their days trying to convince people not to defend themselves when they break in at night, which considering the alternative that they're legitimately that wimpy/paranoid that they'd rather be at the mercy of home invaders than the legal system, seems downright plausible to me.

Call me naive, crazy, macho, or whatever other sad excuse for an insult your mind can possibly conjure if you must, but that's completely unthinkable to me. I don't know what kind of screwed up laws exist in your states that the legal system favors criminals over law-abiding citizens, but why you would continue living in such states, much less living in fear of such a corrupt legal system to the absurd degree that you'd sooner let yourself be victimized than fight back is just plain wrong. If I couldn't afford to move out of that miserable state and someone attacked me, then I'd sooner stand up to my attackers, go to prison, and fight the broken laws from the inside than attempt to "live" my life under tyranny. Better to me a martyr than just another victim of a criminal and the corrupt laws that enabled him.
I'll never understand how there are so many folks who speak as though they would take up arms and battle the Army itself if the Government ever attempted to strip them of their Second Amendment rights, yet apparently they're so scared of Lawyers that they wouldn't take up arms against someone who may very well rob them of their very life.

Sorry to rant about this, but it drives me absolutely crazy seeing people so afraid of the potential consequences of defending themselves that they've all but talked themselves out of it, especially when they start trying to convince others to follow their shameful example.

 

[ContinentalOp]

Sorry to rant about this, but it drives me absolutely crazy seeing people so afraid of the potential consequences of defending themselves that they've all but talked themselves out of it, especially when they start trying to convince others to follow their shameful example.

That's ok. It drives me crazy to see people who disregard the legal aftermath that can happen after a justified self defense shooting. If you're lucky, you may never have to find that out. If you're not, you may be able to successfully defend yourself only to find out that the legal expenses involved have bankrupted your family and whatever plans you had are gone. Maybe even your home. Worse case scenario, if you survive, you defend yourself but end up in prison. Wouldn't be the first time that's happened. I'm sure your family would appreciate that.

Now, is any of that a sure thing? Of course not. But to fail to acknowledge the possibility makes about as much sense as some guy buying a gun, loading it, and sticking it in his pocket without ever shooting it or getting any kind of practice or training. It's like hoping for the best but not doing any kind of preparation for the worst.

But accepting that there may be unexpected consequences, including legal troubles and expenses, and planning for it beforehand, can free your mind to do what needs to be done when it needs to be done. So does knowing what the laws are.

But hey, if you like gambling...

 

[Doug M.]

You need to not only know the law, but the local legal culture. Where I live in WA, offender well-being is properly understood to be at the bottom of the priority of life, and defense of self and others/home is going to get no negative attention. (And I know the people who would be doing the review, not to mention I would likely be involved if I was not the user of the force.)

In dumb places such as Seattle/King County, all bets are off. If you are stuck in someplace else that is dumb (most of the I5 corridor from Blaine to San Diego; downstate NY; Jersey, Maryland, Mass and the like), you should act accordingly. There are places I simply will not go because of their attitudes.

Frankly, there likely should have 10-30 rioters shot every night in Seattle due to the arsons and other violent crimes. Instead, the Mayor is negotiating with the rioters/terrorists in the Capitol Hill Anarchy Zone, when the correct answer is "ask, tell, make" covered in a few seconds and LOTS of arrests.

 

[Bubba2014]

Just because some thing is legal, it may not be the smartest thing to do. Even if you are not charged with a crime, you can still be sued, and possibly loose every that you own.

 

[badge]

Having suffered 22% Second and Third Degree burns personally I know how dangerous fire can be. Property is property and life is life. Property can be replaced. Your existence cannot. I may be a tad off topic. Please forgive me Federali. If you can get out I would suggest that. If it appears that you cannot I think we all know the other option.

 

[Echo40]

That's ok. It drives me crazy to see people who disregard the legal aftermath that can happen after a justified self defense shooting. If you're lucky, you may never have to find that out. If you're not, you may be able to successfully defend yourself only to find out that the legal expenses involved have bankrupted your family and whatever plans you had are gone. Maybe even your home. Worse case scenario, if you survive, you defend yourself but end up in prison. Wouldn't be the first time that's happened. I'm sure your family would appreciate that.

Now, is any of that a sure thing? Of course not. But to fail to acknowledge the possibility makes about as much sense as some guy buying a gun, loading it, and sticking it in his pocket without ever shooting it or getting any kind of practice or training. It's like hoping for the best but not doing any kind of preparation for the worst.

But accepting that there may be unexpected consequences, including legal troubles and expenses, and planning for it beforehand, can free your mind to do what needs to be done when it needs to be done. So does knowing what the laws are.

But hey, if you like gambling...

As previously stated, money is worthless if you're dead and most violent unprovoked attacks are done for the sake of robbery, ergo you're likely to be left without money either way. Besides, I grew up poor, and have been through numerous financial troubles throughout my life, so I already know how to survive without money and the prospect of losing it isn't nearly as scary to me as it may be to someone unfamiliar with the prospect. Besides, having been through said experiences, I already know that money comes and goes regardless of how well you prepare because life can always throw unexpected expenses at you. (My personal favorite is medical expenses, those are the worst.)

Furthermore, I couldn't face my family if I didn't give my all to protect them because I was too busy cowering over the thought of courtroom expenses and imprisonment.

Last but not least, speaking of expenses... You know what else is potentially more expensive than legal fees? Medical bills, psychiatric bills, and funerary expenses! You know, other expenses which could potentially come in the aftermath of a violent attack. So regardless of what you do, you're probably not going to walk away from an attack without any expenses whatsoever.

No matter what you do, the aftermath of a violent attack is going to consist of you making the most of a bad situation.

 

[2lmaker]

A lit gas bomb, mazeltov cocktail, is a dangerous and deadly weapon and if in range and in fear of death, shoot!
If some idiot is stoking a fire in the middle of a riot- you cant fix stupid and unless you think he could throw that fire (pallet, mattress, dumpster) at or on you, you should retreat and 911. You were too close anyway.
I know, that fire may spread and engulf an orphanage, but it aint your fight, thats a fire department level decision so get to safety and out of their way.

while we are at it, laying in wait for an arsonist is not going to sit well with most jurys, and setting a trap for an arsonist and catching a firefighter is not going to plea down below at least manslaughter.

I can't really imagine being the only person with a gun that could stop an arsonist with intent, most of the imaginable scenarios involve laying in wait or no possible law response as in post-apocalypse. Me and an idiot with a lit cocktail facing off on an open street? Yep. Odds of that? I probably ran and hid a long time ago.......

 

[Ziggy2525]

Just because some thing is legal, it may not be the smartest thing to do. Even if you are not charged with a crime, you can still be sued, and possibly loose every that you own.

A different way I've seen this phrased is "What are you willing to go to jail for if a jury decides you weren't justified using deadly force."

Protecting my wife, kids, and grand kids? Yep. A house with no one inside? Probably not.