Hypothetical

P

Pondoro

Member
Joined
Feb 5, 2001
Messages
576
Reaction score
678
City & State/Province
Midwest
Everyone who carries has heard two true rules:
1) If you come home and find a guy just finished burglarizing your house you cannot shoot him to stop his escape.
2) If you are armed you have a strong duty to avoid escalating an argument towards actual fisticuffs.

I agree with those rules. But then I put the two together. A woman around here looked out and saw a stranger pulling away with her expensive trailer hooked to his truck. What if she had run out and shot his radiator to stop him? Is that "escalating"? It is pretty much guaranteed to irritate him.
 
I am not a lawyer, I do not play one on TV. I don't know what the law is where you live. I don't know how the District Attorney or a potential Jury Pool may feel in your locale.

BUT

There is a BIG difference between an unknown scumbag just left your driveway after burgarlizing your house.

AND

A scumbag is departing your driveway WHILE COMMITING THE CRIME OF STEALING YOUR HOUSEtrailer.

The crime is being committed. And many places including where I currently live (but maybe NOT where you live) permit the use of deadly force to stop ONGOING FELONIOUS criminal acts.

But, I would either refrain from firing or fire at the criminal. Trying to play the Lone Ranger and shooting at hands, guns, radiators or tires seems a really good way to get oneself killed.
 
Last edited:
Well if we're just speculating hypothetically, and taking into account that I'm not a lawyer and nothing I say should be construed as legal advice and I recommend actually asking a lawyer, well then:

If she shot the vehicle to disable it but then withdrew from the confrontation and waited on the Popo out of the conflict zone I think she would be OK in many locations, in many jurisdictions, but not all. A case for some sort of reckless endangerment could be argued I suppose. If she struck the dirtbag injuring or killing him or someone else or caused the vehicle to crash, injuring or killing him or someone else her hind end would be in deep guano. She isn't constrained by police policy but is responsible for the consequences of her actions. I sure wouldn't try it in San Francisco.

Of course this is all sort of silly. I also think it's worth remembering that anything posted on the internet can come back to haunt you.

PS: I do not agree with the post immediately prior to mine.
 
Last edited:
opr1945 said:
I am a Lawyer. Laws vary from state to state. But, generally, you cannot use deadly force to protect property. Even if it is valuable. You can only use deadly force to protect someone from impending grave harm or death.
Click to expand...


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.)
 
TomkinsSP said:
...many places including where I currently live (but maybe NOT where you live) permit the use of deadly force to stop ONGOING FELONIOUS criminal acts.
Click to expand...
Even here in CA we have a law that plainly states that use of deadly force is justifiable if preventing a felony. However, the interpretation of that law while you're standing in front of a judge, with 12 of your most distant friends sitting nearby, will not be by the letter of the law. The interpretation will be taken in the most strict way possible.

Stealing a $1,500 TV is a felony here. If you shoot someone while they are committing that felony, you're going to prison for murder or attempted murder. The thief, if he lives, will get out of prison before you do.

Whether or not I'm a lawyer is irrelevant.
 
Here I can use force to defended my property. If I caught someone coming out of my house loaded down with my "stuff" he best drop it and run. If he was running empty handed I might get in trouble if I shot him. Driving off with my car or trailer and your still in the process of stealing my property. Once he stops stealing my property I am not allowed to use deadly force.

45-3-104. Use of force in defense of other property.
A person is justified in the use of force or threat to use force against another when and to the extent that the person reasonably believes that the conduct is necessary to prevent or terminate the other person's trespass on or other tortious or criminal interference with either real property, other than an occupied structure, or personal property lawfully in the person's possession or in the possession of another who is a member of the person's immediate family or household or of a person whose property the person has a legal duty to protect.
 
The use of force, including deadly force, is legal under the law in Texas. Note, however, that you can still be sued for civil remedies even if the force used was legally justified.

Sec. 9.02. JUSTIFICATION AS A DEFENSE. It is a defense to prosecution that the conduct in question is justified under this chapter.

Sec. 9.06. CIVIL REMEDIES UNAFFECTED. The fact that conduct is justified under this chapter does not abolish or impair any remedy for the conduct that is available in a civil suit.

Sec. 9.04. THREATS AS JUSTIFIABLE FORCE. The threat of force is justified when the use of force is justified by this chapter. For purposes of this section, a threat to cause death or serious bodily injury by the production of a weapon or otherwise, as long as the actor's purpose is limited to creating an apprehension that he will use deadly force if necessary, does not constitute the use of deadly force.

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. 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.
 
steelslaver said:
Here I can use force to defended my property. If I caught someone coming out of my house loaded down with my "stuff" he best drop it and run. If he was running empty handed I might get in trouble if I shot him. Driving off with my car or trailer and your still in the process of stealing my property. Once he stops stealing my property I am not allowed to use deadly force.

45-3-104. Use of force in defense of other property.
A person is justified in the use of force or threat to use force against another when and to the extent that the person reasonably believes that the conduct is necessary to prevent or terminate the other person's trespass on or other tortious or criminal interference with either real property, other than an occupied structure, or personal property lawfully in the person's possession or in the possession of another who is a member of the person's immediate family or household or of a person whose property the person has a legal duty to protect.
Click to expand...
My state has a similar statute, maybe even the same wording, but has separate definitions for “use of force” and “use of deadly force.”

Here, “Use of Force” means you can basically beat them up to get them to stop stealing your stuff, but you can’t shoot them, stab them, or hit them with a bat. Here “Use of Deadly Force” can only be used if someone is trying to kill someone, gravely injure someone, kidnap someone, arson, or rape someone.

Interesting, almost frightening, how much it varies between states.
 
Last edited:
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.
 
Last edited:
In Texas it is theoretically illegal to use deadly force to protect property except at night. Why the exception? Who knows - it evidently seemed reasonable to the legislators at the time.

However . . . in practice many have used deadly force to protect their property during daylight hours and not been prosecuted. It all depends on the local prosecutor and what he thinks a jury would convict on.

A local owner of a check cashing place was robbed a couple years ago. He grabbed his handgun and pursued the robber out of his store, around the building, and into a vacant lot where he shot and killed the robber. When his cousin told me about it I told her he was in danger of doing serious jail time over that. He was not prosecuted.
 
ispcapt said:
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.
Click to expand...

Just this morning, due to this thread, I had a discussion with my wife, who is an attorney. On force, forcible crime etc. You are correct on force and deadly force and forcible felony (here statues read forcible crime and not forcible felony). But, here is a couple kickers, the real battle will boil down tto what was or can be seen as forcible. Even what is deadly force. For me atg 6'4" and 300# what could be considered deadly force may well be different than a 5'1", 120# woman. Another is your local jurisdiction even within state boundaries. Montana has some very liberal minded areas, Missoula, Bozeman, Kalispell, and many very conservative areas where lots of things are viewed from a very different perspective. It is not a political thing either. Butte/Silverbow always votes Democrat, but, because of its tough mining heritage, a man's right to defend himself and property would be viewed as near absolute. Where I live going onto another persons property without permission and proceeding to remove his property and the local sheriff, county attorney and juries might not be very concerned about the definitions of forcible crime and what type of force you used.

Shee told me about an incident in Bozeman where a little guy kept pushing and even striking a big guy and the big guy din't respond and turned his back, upon being struck again he turned and beat the little guy pretty well. Both her and the other public defender agreed among themselves that the only reason it was even in court was because of where it happened. Male public defender was from Butte and said big guy wouldn't even have been arrested or charged. Wife went to HS school in a reservation town and had learned to fight as a necessity of life. Nobody ever went to jail. Guy was convicted in Bozeman. I grew up in eastern Montana cowtown. I fought. Once as a bouncer I knocked a guy down in an altercation, where he had attacked his girl friend. He went out cold and had to go to the hospital and stay for observation. I was never even questioned by police.
There if you got hurt in a bar room (or parking lot) brawl you were on your own.
 
Another thing to remember when talking about this is the "reasonable person" standard. This is a phrase used in law to denote an average person of average ability.

Whether we like it or not, whether it's actually reasonable or not, those 12 people will be saying to themselves, "Would I have done what he did if I were in this same situation?" What you want is them to think, "I would absolutely have done what he did."
 
The only way deadly force would have been justified in the situation by the OP would have been if the trailer thief was driving at you with both vehicles while attempting to flee. (And how else would you be able to hit the radiator?)

After that, law or no, there would be extensive subjectivity involved - the local political and legal climate, how the local media report the incident, etc. And probably if you hit and stopped the vehicle with a single round vs. filling the local airspace with 18 projectiles...
 
opr1945 said:
I am a Lawyer. Laws vary from state to state. But, generally, you cannot use deadly force to protect property. Even if it is valuable. You can only use deadly force to protect someone from impending grave harm or death.
Click to expand...

So if the thief tries to run me over when I try to stop him, then I can use deadly force?
 
ispcapt said:
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.
Click to expand...

Sometimes, it's just not fun, living here in Illinois.
 
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
 
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?
 
Rpg said:
You have to be dumb as a box of rocks to shoot at a moving vehicle.

This is real life, not the movies.
Click to expand...

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.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Rpg
Pondoro said:
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?
Click to expand...

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...
 
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
 
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.
 
RGVshooter said:
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.)
Click to expand...

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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

S
My Beloved Friends and Suppressors
Replies
4
Views
294
Hilldweller
Hilldweller
RM Vivas
Archival Observations: Excise Tax - Only The Little People Pay Taxes – L. Helmsley
Replies
1
Views
110
Cities n Dust
Cities n Dust
Faulkner
Tales from the Faulkner Files: Vehicle vs deer
2 3
Replies
61
Views
4K
M29since14
M
Kiwi cop
Well it is finally over (almost)
Replies
9
Views
1K
mckenney99
mckenney99
Ol' Drover
The Seminole Magnums
Replies
20
Views
3K
Retired W4
Retired W4

Latest posts

Back
Top