Fire as a Weapon

[HardToHandle]

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.

Boy, I agree with this post.
Legal on the books and legal in fact are not synonymous, as the last month of riots and various unprosecuted law breaking shows. Discussed ad nauseum elsewhere, but what was a clear deadly force situation 45 days ago does not prevent a person from being maliciously prosecuted with the full fury of a major district attorney's office.

Pedantic arguments from non-lawyers citing vague statutory law is a world of difference from real case law in a jurisdiction - like being an ace pilot in a computer game versus a 10,000Hr type qualified pilot. YMMV.

 

[ISCS Yoda]

Houston Rick, the Joe Horn story! Outstanding! I had a very close friend, now gone, named Joe Horn. Retired LEO, Vietname vet, gun dealer, gun expert, etc. You have no idea how much ribbing he took from us after that other Joe Horn story hit the news.

2lmaker, this is by far one of the great "malapropisms" of all time:

mazeltov cocktail,

A "molotov cocktail" is defined as a "a crude incendiary device typically consisting of a bottle filled with flammable liquid and with a means of ignition. The production of similar grenades was organized by Vyacheslav Molotov during World War II."

(c) Online Dictionary

"Mazel tov" is, of course, Hebrew or Yiddish for congratulations or good luck or similar phrases of good will.

But I promise to find a way to use that new phrase so I thank you!
=============================================
============================================
Some Texas statutory items - when you put them together you can see what the answer to the OP's question would be in Texas:

Texas Property and Penal Codes - various provisions

(1) " Dwelling " means one or more rooms rented for use as a permanent residence under a single lease to one or more tenants.

"Dwelling" means any:

(A) structure or part of a structure that is occupied as, or designed or intended for occupancy as, a residence by one or more families; or

(B) vacant land that is offered for sale or lease for the construction or location of a structure or part of a structure described by Paragraph (A).

(9) "Family" includes a single individual.

"Residential land" means real property improved by a dwelling and zoned for or otherwise authorized for single-family or multifamily use.

"Dwelling" means one or more rooms rented for use as a permanent residence under a single lease to one or more tenants.

"Tenant" means a person who is authorized by a lease to occupy a dwelling to the exclusion of others and, for the purposes of Subchapters D, E, and F, who is obligated under the lease to pay rent.

================================



(a) For the purpose of this section, "riot" means the assemblage of seven or more persons resulting in conduct which:

(1) creates an immediate danger of damage to property or injury to persons;

(2) substantially obstructs law enforcement or other governmental functions or services; or

(3) by force, threat of force, or physical action deprives any person of a legal right or disturbs any person in the enjoyment of a legal right.

(b) A person commits an offense if he knowingly participates in a riot.

(c) It is a defense to prosecution under this section that the assembly was at first lawful and when one of those assembled manifested an intent to engage in conduct enumerated in Subsection (a), the actor retired from the assembly.

(d) It is no defense to prosecution under this section that another who was a party to the riot has been acquitted, has not been arrested, prosecuted, or convicted, has been convicted of a different offense or of a different type or class of offense, or is immune from prosecution.

(e) Except as provided in Subsection (f), an offense under this section is a Class B misdemeanor.

(f) An offense under this section is an offense of the same classification as any offense of a higher grade committed by anyone engaged in the riot if the offense was:

(1) in the furtherance of the purpose of the assembly; or

(2) an offense which should have been anticipated as a result of the assembly.

==================================

SUBCHAPTER C. PROTECTION OF PERSONS

Sec. 9.31. SELF-DEFENSE. (a) Except as provided in Subsection (b), a person is justified in using force against another when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to protect the actor against the other's use or attempted use of unlawful force. The actor's belief that the force was immediately necessary as described by this subsection is presumed to be reasonable if the actor:

(1) knew or had reason to believe that the person against whom the force was used:

(A) unlawfully and with force entered, or was attempting to enter unlawfully and with force, the actor's occupied habitation, vehicle, or place of business or employment;

(B) unlawfully and with force removed, or was attempting to remove unlawfully and with force, the actor from the actor's habitation, vehicle, or place of business or employment; or

(C) was committing or attempting to commit aggravated kidnapping, murder, sexual assault, aggravated sexual assault, robbery, or aggravated robbery;

(2) did not provoke the person against whom the force was used; and

(3) was not otherwise engaged in criminal activity, other than a Class C misdemeanor that is a violation of a law or ordinance regulating traffic at the time the force was used.

====================================

Sec. 9.32. DEADLY FORCE IN DEFENSE OF PERSON. (a) A person is justified in using deadly force against another:

(1) if the actor would be justified in using force against the other under Section 9.31; and

(2) when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the deadly force is immediately necessary:

(A) to protect the actor against the other's use or attempted use of unlawful deadly force; or

(B) to prevent the other's imminent commission of aggravated kidnapping, murder, sexual assault, aggravated sexual assault, robbery, or aggravated robbery.

(b) The actor's belief under Subsection (a)(2) that the deadly force was immediately necessary as described by that subdivision is presumed to be reasonable if the actor:

(1) knew or had reason to believe that the person against whom the deadly force was used:

(A) unlawfully and with force entered, or was attempting to enter unlawfully and with force, the actor's occupied habitation, vehicle, or place of business or employment;

(B) unlawfully and with force removed, or was attempting to remove unlawfully and with force, the actor from the actor's habitation, vehicle, or place of business or employment; or

(C) was committing or attempting to commit an offense described by Subsection (a)(2)(B);

(2) did not provoke the person against whom the force was used; and

(3) was not otherwise engaged in criminal activity, other than a Class C misdemeanor that is a violation of a law or ordinance regulating traffic at the time the force was used.

===========================================

Sec. 9.33. DEFENSE OF THIRD PERSON. A person is justified in using force or deadly force against another to protect a third person if:

(1) under the circumstances as the actor reasonably believes them to be, the actor would be justified under Section 9.31 or 9.32 in using force or deadly force to protect himself against the unlawful force or unlawful deadly force he reasonably believes to be threatening the third person he seeks to protect; and

(2) the actor reasonably believes that his intervention is immediately necessary to protect the third person.

Acts 1973, 63rd Leg., p. 883, ch. 399, Sec. 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1974. Amended by Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 900, Sec. 1.01, eff. Sept. 1, 1994.


Sec. 9.34. PROTECTION OF LIFE OR HEALTH. (a) A person is justified in using force, but not deadly force, against another when and to the degree he reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to prevent the other from committing suicide or inflicting serious bodily injury to himself.

(b) A person is justified in using both force and deadly force against another when and to the degree he reasonably believes the force or deadly force is immediately necessary to preserve the other's life in an emergency.

The State of Texas doesn't claim copyrights for its statutes. They are public domain and are quoted and used by lawyers and courts everywhere.
=============================

I didn't look for the law on sleeping inside a business but I know that if you're doing that it's definitely your dwelling, whether one night or many nights.

The "local legal culture" is markedly different in the big cities of Texas than it once was - the influx of folks from the North, East, and West Coast has caused this. Still, if you're sitting on your front porch in any given evening and rioters show up you won't get much argument from anyone if you're obliged to act accordingly.

 

[Rastoff]

Why is it always one way or the other with some people? I don't understand the idea that you have to kill someone or you're not protecting your family/property. You can protect your home without killing.

 

[ISCS Yoda]

Why is it always one way or the other with some people? I don't understand the idea that you have to kill someone or you're not protecting your family/property. You can protect your home without killing.

That's true my friend. The problem is that if one is confronted by deadly force one may be required to use deadly force to stop the threat. Deadly force, by definition, means that the use thereof could cause someone to die.

If you can thwart an attack by brandishing your weapon then you have succeeded in avoiding the death of anyone, perp or good guy. If it's just you and a bad guy and you have martial skills that don't involve firearms you might very well thwart a threat without resorting to killing anyone.

So you are correct - but this is the Smith & Wesson Forum, the essential discussion is the use of firearms to defend hearth and home and kith and kin and the result of using firearms to protect yourself or others is HIGHLY LIKELY to result in your opponent's demise. Therein lies the rub.

Nobody here wants to kill anyone. Everyone here is prepared to do so and I think I speak for virtually everyone on this Forum. Anyone not prepared to use deadly force with a firearm ought to not own a firearm.....not counting folks with pretty, high dollar collections locked in safes or hanging on walls with no ammunition available.

I don't think anyone here fits that description BICBW......

 

[sigp220.45]

A couple of years after I retired I got a subpoena to testify in an old rape case. It was like old home week at the ABQ USAO. One of my favorite AUSAs came out of the Grand Jury room where she had presented a proposed manslaughter indictment for an old dude who heard some noises by his horse trailers one night. He had a trailer stolen a couple of weeks before so he stuck his Marlin Model 60 (a perennial reservation favorite) out the window and cracked off 8 or 10 rounds in the general direction of the sounds, which stopped post haste. He went back to bed and the next morning found a dead 20-something girl stretched out by his trailer.

The grand jury no billed it, and my friend wasn't surprised. People hate thieves. I bet they hate arsonists too.

There's the law, and there's what really happens. It cuts both ways.

 

[Oracle]

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




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:



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.

The term "Reasonable person" is open ended and it appears in many laws. It leaves a huge stumbling block as what is and what isn't a reasonable person. Ask 100 people to define reasonable person, you will get dozens and dozens of definitions.

 

[Oracle]

Our neighbors and I have distinctly different views. They say they don't have anything in their home worth using deadly force. I say what about the lives of my family.

So, put the neighbors and myself on a jury.

 

[Sheepdogged]

An interesting point to keep in mind is that in states like mine, regardless of the answer to the OP's question, for voting purposes your home is where you sleep at night. So if you are homeless and sleep under a bridge, for example, the court recognizes that where you slept under that bridge is or was your home. I mention this because it's something to keep in mind in terms of a legal defense God forbid. Even in less extreme circumstances, people living in temporary housing, living with relatives, having dual citizenship in multiple states & countries etc. can also make such defense. We have to remember that, regardless of the constitutionality, laws are made one of three ways in this country (by legislative, executive or judicial action). So even if your state doesn't give you the benefit of the doubt defending yourself from your car, for example, if you can convince a judge or a court, you might be able to set new precedent (even if only in your state and/or circumstance).

Anyway, the OP makes a good point.

 

[max503]

I figure I would know if someone was trying to do me harm. I would be scared witless. I've been scared witless. I know what it feels like.

 

[Echo40]

Why is it always one way or the other with some people? I don't understand the idea that you have to kill someone or you're not protecting your family/property. You can protect your home without killing.

I can't speak for everyone in every thread, but in the context of this thread and the scenario presented within, my answer is simple...

Because someone who is going to throw Molotov Cocktails at you or your home isn't the sort who is going to back down because that's not the behavior a streetcorner thug looking for an easy target, it's the behavior of a motivated attacker whose doing it out of hate or just for the thrill of it.

It seems like a pretty straightforward kill or be killed situation to me.

But hey, if you can think of another way to stop some maniac armed with a molotov cocktail from setting fire to you, your family, and/or your home without killing him, then I would sincerely like to hear it because obviously I'd rather not have to shoot someone.

 

[ImprovedModel56Fan]

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.

If you happen to be the person occupying whatever may or may not be a "dwelling" when someone is firebombing it, it might be terminally mistaken to concern yourself more with whether it is a "dwelling" than with stopping the attack by any means necessary.

IMO, this would hold true regardless of any prior determination as to the status of the "dwelling."

 

[old tanker]

... mazeltov cocktail...

Is that made with Mogen David? or do you mean Molotov cocktail? A crude incendiary device typically consisting of a bottle filled with flammable liquid and with a means of ignition. The production of similar grenades was organized by Vyacheslav Molotov during World War II, hence the name.

 

[ImprovedModel56Fan]

Is that made with Mogen David?

Even Mad Dog 2020 would be a little light in alcohol content. Everclear would probably work, but alcohol is still a little cool-burning. Better to stick with the original.

 

[Ziggy2525]

I can't speak for everyone in every thread, but in the context of this thread and the scenario presented within, my answer is simple...

Because someone who is going to throw Molotov Cocktails at you or your home isn't the sort who is going to back down because that's not the behavior a streetcorner thug looking for an easy target, it's the behavior of a motivated attacker whose doing it out of hate or just for the thrill of it.

It seems like a pretty straightforward kill or be killed situation to me.

But hey, if you can think of another way to stop some maniac armed with a molotov cocktail from setting fire to you, your family, and/or your home without killing him, then I would sincerely like to hear it because obviously I'd rather not have to shoot someone.

I thought he was differentiating between a rioter throwing a firebomb at someone's home when there were people inside versus a rioter throwing a firebomb at someone's home when no one was inside. In his state the first case allows a deadly force response. The second case doesn't.

Like every other law related to self defense, I'm sure it varies by state. Like a couple others mentioned, what actually happens with a jury has less to do with the written law then with location, location, location.

 

[steelslaver]

Here i would get an atta boy from the sheriff and country attorney for shooting a fire bomber j

 

[old tanker]

I can't speak for everyone in every thread, but in the context of this thread and the scenario presented within, my answer is simple...

Because someone who is going to throw Molotov Cocktails at you or your home isn't the sort who is going to back down because that's not the behavior a streetcorner thug looking for an easy target, it's the behavior of a motivated attacker whose doing it out of hate or just for the thrill of it.

It seems like a pretty straightforward kill or be killed situation to me.

But hey, if you can think of another way to stop some maniac armed with a molotov cocktail from setting fire to you, your family, and/or your home without killing him, then I would sincerely like to hear it because obviously I'd rather not have to shoot someone.

Maybe if you are a really, really good shot you could just shoot it out of his hand like the Lone Ranger?

[ame]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xpu78UC1mRU[/ame]

 

[SMSgt]

The term "Reasonable person" is open ended and it appears in many laws. It leaves a huge stumbling block as what is and what isn't a reasonable person. Ask 100 people to define reasonable person, you will get dozens and dozens of definitions.

The reasonable persons are the ones sitting in the jury box. What everyone else thinks is irrelevant.

 

[delcrossv]

You go out for a late night bike ride/walk and as you round the corner three clowns are lighting and ready to throw MCs at your home. No one is inside except for your pets.

In Illinois? Shoot 'em. You can use deadly force if they are committing a 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.

From a practical standpoint, you'll be better off if you're not in Cook county (Chicago)

 

[old tanker]

You go out for a late night bike ride/walk and as you round the corner three clowns are lighting and ready to throw MCs at your home. No one is inside except for your pets.

Kentucky Revised Statutes

503.080 Protection of property.

(2) The use of deadly physical force by a defendant upon another person is justifiable under subsection (1) only when the defendant believes that the person against whom such force is used is:

(c) Committing or attempting to commit arson of a dwelling or other building in his possession.

Sounds like "attempting to commit arson of a dwelling" to me.

 

[keith44spl]

I don't know jest what anyone else would do when confronted with a fire bomber.....

I do know, if'n I'm able to respond....they'll be having their saddle sent home.

.