We have a 'test case'....

[susieqz]

civil suits are simply unfair.
if they break thru my steel door i will fire.
i cannot best a male hand to hand.
local police will not be upset with me if i can exhibit a broken door.
but, my life would be ruined as i can't afford a quality defense
nontheless, i refuse to be raped.
911 response time here would be around 30 minutes.

 

[10ring]

...And rock salt was the accepted load. I wonder if they'll make children's books about trying to steal a lid of old man McDonald's pot?

Seriously, though. I didn't even think about the plants being legal and therefore have value and could make them worth defending. But you right. Doubt if it will sway many people concerning the level of response, though.

In most states, a person is not justified in using deadly force (such as shooting at a someone, whether you hit them or not) to protect property or even to protect against minor assaults. Each state is different and many make exceptions for arson; some have laws allowing deadly force within a home, and some are even more expansive.

Regarding the post about deadly force in Texas above, it isn't that simple, even in Texas:

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.

The above is NOT LEGAL ADVICE. I simply attached a small bit of the Texas penal code. I strongly urge anyone who anticipates that they may shoot at someone for stealing their truck or their pot or their lawn flamingo to spend a few dollars and talk to an attorney knowledgeable about these things in your jurisdiction, BEFORE you do so.

 

[Mule Packer]

And we have a similar situation here. Not in my town but the metro area. Kids steeling cars. But in this case they are going after cars where the owner has just gotten into the car or just opened the car door. So far they've only went after female owners.

We had the exact situation in our state a few years ago. The car-jackings were usually targeted at women who were either stopped in their vehicle or were in the process of entering their vehicle.

The state quickly passed a law saying that it was legal to carry a concealed, loaded firearm in your vehicle without a permit, just as if it were in your home.

Amazingly, the car-jackings took an immediate down turn. Imagine that.

Who would've ever thought that the potential, legalized use of a firearm would deter crime? But, as has been stated previously, all states are different.

 

[ChattanoogaPhil]

Kinda what I think. And not to appear cold and uncaring but don't have to wonder about any repeat offenses from the 15 y/o.

Of course no one wants to see a kid lose his life, but if someone has a 15 y/o running the streets at night armed and stealing cars, it should not be a surprise that kid ends up at the morgue.

That as a society we agonize over it and try to find fault with the victim and everyone else other than the perpetrator is a growing problem.

 

[shocker]

Back to the OP, in Michigan I dial 911 and be a good witness. And of course have a weapon ready if forced entry is tried. Based on precedent here, a person would need a reasonable expectation that the perp could actually force an entry before shooting from inside to outside, though.

 

[Watchdog]

How will we as gun owners be affected?

This won't affect us as gun owners. At all.

Why is this being referred to as a test case? Incidents like this happen somewhere in this country on a weekly, if not daily, basis.

 

[buzzkillbob]

...One 14 year old had a sawed off Remington 700 in his pants....

What the......certainly you meant Remington 870....

 

[Arik]

What the......certainly you meant Remington 870....

Remington 700

Cut down

Sent from my XT1650 using Tapatalk

 

[joeintexas]

Although I consider a thief one of the lowest forms of human life I would have a difficult decision to make, whether to shoot or not. Show me a gun and all bets are off! That gun doesn't know if you're 15 or 50, trigger gets pulled it does its job! I do despise a thief, no matter the age.

 

[tops]

I read several of these posts that people state it is only property that can be replaced and a thief shouldn't get killed for stealing property that insurance will replace.
The thieves know it's illegal to shoot them so they have a safe way to make a living.
If the law was changed so it would be legal to shoot a thief I wonder if they would think stealing property was worth their life.
Larry

 

[ChattanoogaPhil]

I read several of these posts that people state it is only property that can be replaced and a thief shouldn't get killed for stealing property that insurance will replace.
The thieves know it's illegal to shoot them so they have a safe way to make a living.
If the law was changed so it would be legal to shoot a thief I wonder if they would think stealing property was worth their life.
Larry

Street thugs understand all too well and exploit the limited consequences of their actions as well as the legal protections afforded them at the expense of their law abiding victims.

Icing on the cake is the moral value lectures that a street thug running amok terrorizing the community committing armed robbery... on and on and on... that his health and welfare is necessarily more valuable than the fruits of his victim's labor.

 

[Arik]

I read several of these posts that people state it is only property that can be replaced and a thief shouldn't get killed for stealing property that insurance will replace.
The thieves know it's illegal to shoot them so they have a safe way to make a living.
If the law was changed so it would be legal to shoot a thief I wonder if they would think stealing property was worth their life.
Larry

Yes they would. It's not a new "profession". Thieves used to be hung or had their hands cut off yet they still excited!

Sent from my XT1650 using Tapatalk

 

[RSanch111]

In Michigan it wouldn't be a crime. All fleeing felons regardless of age or the threat they did or did NOT pose, are able to be shot without the shooter being prosecuted.

Someone will no doubt cite "TN V. Garner". The thing you need to know about that case was that it was a CIVIL case, not a criminal case. So, in MI and two other states, while you may be held CIVILLY liable for shooting a non-violent fleeing felon, you may not be criminally charged.

AFTER the TN V. Garner case, most states passed laws that made it a crime to shoot a non-violent fleeing felon. TN V. Garner did not make it unlawful.

So...as has been mentioned. It all depends on the law in a particular state and whether the county or state prosecutor needs to look tough on crime or tough on gun owners.

 

[RSanch111]

Remington 700

Cut down

Sent from my XT1650 using Tapatalk

I'd like to see someone fire that sawed-off Enfield with one hand!

 

[will527]

In my state, you are allowed to protect your property. If it involves deadly force so be it.

 

[Wise_A]

Man, where do you guys live that a thief is the worst kind of criminal?

Icing on the cake is the moral value lectures that a street thug running amok terrorizing the community committing armed robbery... on and on and on... that his health and welfare is necessarily more valuable than the fruits of his victim's labor.

There's a very clear distinction between armed robbery and a property crime. What most of us are talking about are thieves breaking into vehicles and unoccupied dwellings. Once you escalate to taking something through force, or breaking into occupied structures, you've graduated to a whole different league.

And yeah, I think that making these distinctions is important. It's what separates Us from Them.

 

[amazingflapjack]

Unfortunate that young men die when involved in acts of crime. There is usually sympathetic dialogue regarding their youthfulness, but the part of the brain where "reason" is processed is far from complete at 13 and 15 years of age, especially in males. This makes them more dangerous because of the difficulty accessing their reactions when confronted. It is a very unfortunate irony. When questioned, their response is often an honest one when they respond, "I don't know" when asked why they did what they did. JMTCW.

 

[otasan56]

The teenagers took the risk here, and they lost. Justifiable shooting.

 

[jag312]

A question I have is how did the 15 year old suspect acquire his gun? Obviously he could not have walked into a gun store and bought it. It was very likely stolen. I would love to participate in the investigation of possible previous crimes of this young man.

 

[Brasky]

I've read each post twice and give them serious thought and I have reached the conclusion that the 2 young men were in the process of turning their lives around. (as most criminals are, according to their family)

I'm sure they were scholars working on the cure for cancer