Defense of property?

[MLR]

First I am in no way advocating the shooting of property thieves.

I have been told countless times that in Oklahoma you can only use deadly force in the limited cases listed in the Self-Defense act. All references there require that you be in fear of your or others life or of great bodily injury.

However in the Oklahoma Constitution it says this.

STATE CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISION
“The right of a citizen to keep and bear arms in defense
of his home, person, or property, or in aid of the civil
power, when thereunto legally summoned, shall never be
prohibited, but nothing herein contained shall prevent
the legislature from regulating the carrying of weapons.”
Article 2, Section 26.

What if anything have the Courts ruled on this? Somehow I believe that they probably would say it does not mean what it says.

Michael

 

[MLR]

No ideas or opinions?

Michael

 

[ProBusiness]

the Self defense act spells out who the 'others' can be: spouse, children, father, mother, employer, employee (i am not 100% sure i got this right but it is close - you get the idea, you may be in trouble if you shoot to protect a stranger).

I have the feeling that the courts feel that no theft of property is worth taking a life to defend it. "Hey, the guy is stealing my truck so i will shoot him". I feel that the courts would say, let him have the truck, not worth taking a guy's life. May be wrong on this but i think this is where liberalism is taking us.

 

[Stephen Cue]

No ideas or opinions? Michael

I'm your huckleberry...

The castle doctrine basically states that one can use deadly force to defend oneself & family against an intruder; no matter if we know the intruder has a deadly force weapon on them or not. The mere fact that they are attempting to break into your dwelling shows that they intend to cause harm to the occupants of said dwelling; so we can use pretty much any degree of force necessary to defend ourselves up to and including deadly force.

The carrying of firearms is not prohibited on private property. Now the use of firearms to protect your property outside of your dwelling is a different matter. We cannot USE deadly force to protect personal property, but IMHO that does not limit us from the THREAT of deadly force to protect our property while on our own land or private land that we have permission to have firearms on. Follow me?

Scenario1:

You're in your home and hear someone breaking into your car, you grab your gun, run outside to find someone burglarizing your car, vandalizing, or other universal mayhem.

Option 1. You shoot the perp on sight, no threat of sever bodily harm to you indicated.

Option 2. You intervene vocally with a threat of deadly force but do not shoot; the perp then runs freezes and/or runs away.

Option 3. You intervene vocally with a threat of deadly force, the perp then indicates imminent danger, you then shoot neutralizing the threat to you.

Which one is legal? Also tell me if I am even close to what you're asking.

IMHO, only options 2 & 3 are justified uses of deadly force in this given scenario with the info shown.

Now protecting your property while not on your own land or private and that you have permission to carry on is another scenario.

In relation to this setting, I believe that one cannot intervene with deadly force or even the threat of deadly force to protect property alone.


Scenario 2: You go to the Justin Beiber concert by yourself like you normally do, you're walking to your car after it just ended and you decide you are craving Cherry Berry or Fresh Berry. While walking out of the BOK center, you notice someone breaking into your 1979 Pinto station wagon with faux wood paneling. Now since the Bieber concert promoters are the ones that were directly dealing with the public at the BOK center and they did not have metal detectors at the door or signage stating that you could not have firearms, you happened to carry your deadly force tool.


Option1. You start blasting.

Option 2. You intervene with your Lorcin 9mm and tell the perp to stop. The perp then runs away or freezes.

Option 3. You intervene vocally without pulling your DFT, the perp then displays imminent danger to you and reveals a weapon that would lead a reasonable person to believe it would lead to severe bodily harm or death if used. Since the perp is not anywhere near the athlete to not only effectively execute the 21ft rule on you, he cannot even execute the 7 yard rule* on you, you neutralize the threat to sever bodily harm or death.




IMHO, only option 3 is legal justified.

 

[SMS]

Scenario1:

You're in your home and hear someone breaking into your car, you grab your gun, run outside to find someone burglarizing your car, vandalizing, or other universal mayhem.

Option 1. You shoot the perp on sight, no threat of sever bodily harm to you indicated.

Option 2. You intervene vocally with a threat of deadly force but do not shoot; the perp then runs freezes and/or runs away.

Option 3. You intervene vocally with a threat of deadly force, the perp then indicates imminent danger, you then shoot neutralizing the threat to you.

Which one is legal? Also tell me if I am even close to what you're asking.

IMHO, only options 2 & 3 are justified uses of deadly force in this given scenario with the info shown.

I have to disagree...you do not have the right to threaten deadly force unless you have been threatened with or you perceive a deadly force threat.

Threatening deadly force when not in imminent danger potentially puts you on the side of the aggressor, and escalates the situation....Not smart when dealing with with a property crime.

So #1, 2, and 3 are all bad options.

As for the Bieber scenario...couldn't happen because no self-respecting CCW holder would go to a JB concert (unless my daughter really turns on the pouty face).

 

[MLR]

My understanding of how things work was that the government works under the confines of the Constitution. The laws that they enact must comply with the Constitution. That if a law conflicts with the Constitution the law is invalid.

The replies here and elsewhere seem to imply that it is the Constitution itself that is invalid because it has be usurped by a new self-defense law. I thought it took an amendment to the Constitution to do that.

“The right of a citizen to keep and bear arms in defense
of his home, person, or property, or in aid of the civil
power, when thereunto legally summoned, shall never be
prohibited,

Does this passage in the Constitution mean anything?


Michael

 

[Stephen Cue]

I have to disagree...you do not have the right to threaten deadly force unless you have been threatened with or you perceive a deadly force threat.
Threatening deadly force when not in imminent danger potentially puts you on the side of the aggressor, and escalates the situation....Not smart when dealing with a property crime.
So #1, 2, and 3 are all bad options.

You make a great point. One thing I will clear up about me saying "threaten deadly force" is not a stop or I will shoot situation. I see how it seems I meant that I would say to the person that if they do not cease their non-violent actions that I would shoot them, I didn’t mean that. It’s the mere fact of having your gun with you in full display when you encounter a trespasser is what I meant by threatening with deadly force. I should have been more specific. Having your gun with you on your property while investigating a disturbance is not illegal and something that I assume many people would do, outside of calling 911.

As for the Bieber scenario...couldn't happen because no self-respecting CCW holder would go to a JB concert (unless my daughter really turns on the pouty face).

Hey, to each their own,

 

[Stephen Cue]

My understanding of how things work was that the government works under the confines of the Constitution. The laws that they enact must comply with the Constitution. That if a law conflicts with the Constitution the law is invalid.

The replies here and elsewhere seem to imply that it is the Constitution itself that is invalid because it has be usurped by a new self-defense law. I thought it took an amendment to the Constitution to do that.

Does this passage in the Constitution mean anything?

Michael

This is a very interesting topic with I assume many differing opinions.

My opinion of your constitution quote is answered in my post above.

On my property, I would investigate a disturbance outside of my dwelling with a firearm unconcealed. To clarify, I would NOT USE deadly force unless then threatened with deadly force. Thanks SMS for pointing out my posts flaws, LOL.

Outside of my private land, I would defend my property with non-deadly force first, then meet force with whatever force is leveled upon me.

 

[SMS]

All clear then....

How'd you like the concert? LOL.

 

[vvvvvvv]

On my property, I would investigate a disturbance outside of my dwelling with a firearm unconcealed.

But defense of oneself is not considered to be a valid reason to carry a firearm upon your property outside the confines of your home. Pierce v State, 1929 OK CR 91, 42 Okl.Cr. 272, 275 P. 393

In short, as far as I can tell, the property provision of Article 2, § 26 has not been addressed directly.