Hypothetical

[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.

 

[Wise_A]

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......

People also get acquitted of drunk driving all the time. It doesn't mean it's time for me to grab a six-pack and some car keys.

 

[fredj338]

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.

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.

I think there are plenty of SD scenarios that would be indisputable in court. Violent, armed attack on your person where you sustain a serious injury, yeah that one will go pretty smoothly. The ones where you can not prove imminent death or injury, like running out in front of a moving car & shooting the driver, not so much.

 

[fredj338]

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......

Not quite the same thing as the OP suggested.

 

[Steve912]

Yeah pretty thin considering burgalry requires entering a structure woth intent to steal,

Some states hold burglary as entry with intent to commit any crime, not just theft; e.g., entry with intent to administer an
ars whuppin, would constitute burglary.

 

[ISCS Yoda]

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.

Even if Texas Penal Code allows it I would not fire at a fleeing felon in the scenario the OP described. If my life or physical well being, or someone else's, is not threatened I am not interested in killing someone to save a TV.

 

[fredj338]

Some states hold burglary as entry with intent to commit any crime, not just theft; e.g., entry with intent to administer an
ars whuppin, would constitute burglary.

Yes but I think still requires a building to be entered, not something taken off your property, like a vehicle in the drive way or maybe even an open carport?? Plenty of burglary charges are pled down to B&E.

 

[Muss Muggins]

Plenty of burglary charges are pled down to B&E.

What's the difference?

 

[colt_saa]

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.

In Florida the wording is "or to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony"

 

[PatAz]

If someone was stealing our rv all they would get from me would be a high five.

 

[Donn]

If the vehicle's driving away, how could someone shoot the radiator? It would have to be akin to the Bill Hickok-Dave Tutt shot. I know laws vary from state to state. Here in Michigan, in this particular scenario, deadly force wouldn't be authorized. It wasn't self defense. Don't get me wrong, the prospect of getting robbed doesn't appeal to me either, but that's why I pay an insurance note. I run outside and start snapping caps, I'll be the one in the back seat of a police cruiser.

 

[BAM-BAM]

I'm a lawyer..... but not a criminal lawyer.

My thoughts on this "Hypothetical"

What's legal and what's the smart thing to do ........ aren't always the same!!!

Sometimes common sense trumps the law!

What does your common sense tell you to do or not do?

 

[keith44spl]

A Deputy I know worked a similar kinda deal.......

Man breaks in a home, with the occupants in the dwelling.

Home owner shoots at machete wielding intruder, outlaw exits dwelling
and attempts to steal homeowner's car. Homeowner shoots at outlaw some more.

Outlaw runs away....And is later captured and jailed.
Homeowner not charged with any violations of the law.

And so it is, in small town rural America. Where the DA serves
and protects his constituents and prosecutes the criminals.



.

 

[BAM-BAM]

A Deputy I know worked a similar kinda deal.......

Man breaks in a home, with the occupants in the dwelling.

Home owner shoots at machete wielding intruder, outlaw exits dwelling
and attempts to steal homeowner's car. Homeowner shoots at outlaw some more.

Outlaw runs away....And is later captured and jailed.
Homeowner not charged with any violations of the law.

And so it is, in small town rural America. Where the DA serves
and protects his constituents and prosecutes the criminals.



.

LOL Rural small town America...... bet the keys were in the car!

 

[03hemi]

Not in GA, we have the "Stand Your Ground Rule" and "Castle Doctrine" so if I'm in fear for my life I can shoot to kill.

 

[keith44spl]

LOL Rural small town America...... bet the keys were in the car!

Most likely, mine are....

When I get in one of the ranch trucks, tractors or any other piece of equipment...I expect the keys to be in em.

I only lockup my un-marked car....
Just to keep the grandsons from playing with the light and siren.


.

 

[Lightfoot4]

Looks like everyone has covered the bases, and I'll probably be repetitive, but figure I might as well add my two cents. While I’ve entertained the thought of shooting out tires, radiator, etc. to keep them from leaving, the consequences of that action depends on where you are, the whims of your district attorney, and even who you are. Locally we had a lady cop walk out of a building to see someone stealing her personal car. She shot the dude dead and didn’t get charged. A normal citizen would have been charged. And firing to stop a car is akin to a warning shot and I’ve read cases of people going down for firing a warning shot.

The bottom line is that I’m not going to do ANYTHING that would put my fate in the hands of some anti-gun district attorney, or some ignorant jury, unless my life absolutely depended on it. If I’m firing a shot it’s because of an imminent fear of death or great bodily harm, not because my tv, truck, boat, etc. is being stolen. I don’t care if the law allows it either. It’s not that I think some criminal scum’s life is more valuable than my stuff, it’s because sometimes it’s still subjective as to whether or not you’re going to be charged with a crime. If I shoot someone, or fire my gun, it’s because I HAD to, not because I could, or wanted to.

 

[dougb1946]

In MN, deadly force is a lot resort. You are expected to vacate your home if safe to do so, and can not use deadly force to recover things. You can use reasonable force to recover property, and if the BG escalates to what a reasonable person sees as deadly, you can respond.
In Minneapolis, a thug was stealing a little old ladies purse, and pistol whipping her till she let loose. Armed licensed good guy gave chase to recover the purse and caught up with the BG. BG tried to draw from a pocket, Good guy responded. BG died of a case of the slows. Law breaks it down into separate acts. The chase was legal, the self defense was legal.

 

[EMP3]

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.

A private person can effect an arrest, commonly known as citizen's arrest. The arrested person must submit to process of law. A citizen can use force necessary to overcome force exerted by suspect who resists process of law. Therefore, a hypothetical suspect would be the escalator & citizen could respond within law to escalator's resistance to process of law.

Should a felon's resistance to process of law force a citizen to use force necessary to overcome resistance, it wouldn't be to protect his property. It would be in accordance with process of law (citzen's arrest).

However, a live witness beats a dead hero every time. Call cops. They have resources to effect an arrest.

 

[Rastoff]

Should a felon's resistance to process of law force a citizen to use force necessary to overcome resistance, it wouldn't be to protect his property. It would be in accordance with process of law (citzen's arrest).

Are you being serious?

 

[Muss Muggins]

Good luck with that . . .

Should a felon's resistance to process of law force a citizen to use force necessary to overcome resistance, it wouldn't be to protect his property. It would be in accordance with process of law (citzen's arrest).