Defense of property?

[twoguns?]

Soooo if Im holding my sho..errr flashlight on him I must be there.
That just seems kinda odd to me..
I believe theres a dollar amount that changes a misdemeaner to a felony, whether Im there or not.
I understand you cant defend property (things) but you can defend against a felony and your home (property).
My Father was a Flight Medic...I just know how to stitch people and stop profuse bleeding, set a few broken bones and such....

 

[OldCurlyWolf]

From what my father told me who is retired LEO stealing things from an occupied area is a felony, one that is not occupied is not.

So if he is stealing your radio, and you are not in the car, its not a felony. If someone steals everything in your home and you are not there, it is not a felony.

If someone comes into your house, and steals a loaf of bread, and you are home. Its a felony.

If the car is in your driveway and you are in the home, I don't know where they draw the line on that one.

Poppa told you wrong. Breaking into a car, house, building, etc. is burglary. Most (very few exceptions) burglary charges are FELONIES.

Burglary of a Habitation is always a felony, even if nothing is taken.

 

[MLR]

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.

For this to be true we have to assume that the States Constitution is not binding. That instead of the Constitution being the outline that all other laws must conform to, it has no value as a restraint in what the government can do to the people.
The Constitution says

“The right of a citizen to keep and bear arms in defense of his home, person, or property,

Does not "in defense" imply an action?

Michael

 

[dieseltech09]

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).
.

Nope
This is what says

D. A person who is not engaged in an unlawful activity and who is attacked in any other place where he or she
has a right to be has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground and meet force with
force, including deadly force, if he or she reasonably believes it is necessary to do so to prevent death or
great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.

I cant find anywhere where it spells out who you can and cant use your gun to protect. However you better be damn sure you know who is the bad guy in the situation

 

[vvvvvvv]

Nope
This is what says



I cant find anywhere where it spells out who you can and cant use your gun to protect. However you better be damn sure you know who is the bad guy in the situation

But... but... the book...



Yeah, the instructor's book also says (or at least did recently) that you're supposed to declare to a police officer that you are carrying no matter how casual the contact.

The important thing is to read, know, and understand the law. Just because the book they give you (or the instructor) says it doesn't mean it's true.

 

[kevin40_2001]

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).

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.

Are there any LEOs or other members with first hand knowledge to confirm this? My opinion was the same as Stephen Cue that #2 and #3 would be justified.

I also had another question.......so if I'm home and someone breaks into my house then I can shoot "anyone" not suppose to be there with no legal repercussions. Right? What if I pull up to my home and notice the front door is kicked in....I pull my carry weapon and upon entering discover a burgular.......good to shoot then?

 

[kevin40_2001]

Messed up the quote in my previous post

 

[inactive]

What if I pull up to my home and notice the front door is kicked in....I pull my carry weapon and upon entering discover a burgular.......good to shoot then?

Nope. You're outside. He's inside. You had the opportunity to flee, simple as that. You were foolish to enter.

Though I admit it's a grey area. You may have suspected the house to be empty. Either way, you can save yourself by calling 911 and letting them enter with you.

 

[kevin40_2001]

Nope. You're outside. He's inside. You had the opportunity to flee, simple as that. You were foolish to enter.

Though I admit it's a grey area. You may have suspected the house to be empty. Either way, you can save yourself by calling 911 and letting them enter with you.

Thanks for the post. That makes sense. I think it could change a lot with the scenario. If I entered from garage and didn't see the front door open and then went in the house as normal while burglar was hiding then discovered it would be a totally different situation I would hope.

 

[inactive]

Thanks for the post. That makes sense. I think it could change a lot with the scenario. If I entered from garage and didn't see the front door open and then went in the house as normal while burglar was hiding then discovered it would be a totally different situation I would hope.

Like this one?

http://www.news9.com/story/12246529...an-killed-by-turley-homeowner?redirected=true



Also, don't bring a sword to a gunfight.