Defense of property?

[john.beck49]

Plese if I have to move to texas , just go ahead and shoot me...JK
The rest of the story..several yrs ago a guy was coming home from work,walking up his driveway. A young man from a smaller town near here was walking out of his house carrying his tv.
The guy pulled his carry weapon (ccw holder), ordered the young man to the ground.
dialed 911, told the operater he had someone on the ground thats was breaking into his house.
The 911 call was recorded the young man started to get up, the guy told him...dont get up...dont do it ..then you heard ...2 shots..the guy told he 911 operater to send an ambulance ...he had to shoot the young man
It was all recorded on the 911 call.
The young man died later at the hospital.
Turns out he was a well known ..well liked young man who played on the high school football team.
Had never been in much trouble..seemed like he just picked the wrong house to burglerize.
The DA didnt file charges.....justified shooting....
But a young man was still dead......

We could only hope for those kind of laws in Okla. I am not saying I would shoot someone over a TV because I honestly don't know what I would do in that situation, but having the right to do so would be comforting. Even if we had those laws on the books in Okla, our current DA would have filed charges anyway. :-(

 

[ripnbst]

If you have no duty to retreat but you are standing in the doorway the only way for burglar to exit is through you. So the criminal either stays put per your directions or you shoot as he comes towards you...

 

[OldCurlyWolf]

What do you guys think about this, business clerks shoot burglars nearly everyday for trying to steal money (think typical gas station scenario) which of course is property. Whether the person is unarmed or armed, having a mask on and scaring the shyt out of everyone during their heist is cause enough to get them shot. Money is a possession just like a tv or anything else yet when the clerk pulls out the revolver from under the register instead of cash and gives the robber one to the hip we clap our hands and chalk up another tally mark for the "good guys". The robber is not "breaking in" and they are only asking for money.

In many cases the robber is just saying "give me your money" and doesnt threaten actual physical harm yet it falls under the castle doctrine. (?) Enough jabbering from me...

Asking for money? DO NOT try that claptrap here. A robber is demanding money and is threatening violence if his/her demands are not met. Ask the fellow who owned the convenience store on the corner of Wilshire and Broadway Extension. Only you can't ask him because a teenaged girl robbed him and KILLED him. Take your bleeding heart attitude elsewhere.

 

[kevin40_2001]

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.

Exactly!

Also a good reason to not have all your guns in the house or at least have your carry weapon when you leave regardless if you are going to put it on or not.

 

[inactive]

Nothing in the SDA says you must be inside the house in order to act against someone breaking in, and as you are someplace that you are legally entitled to be there is no duty to retreat.

Actually, the relevant statute reads (emphasis mine):

§21-1289.25. Physical or deadly force against intruder.
PHYSICAL OR DEADLY FORCE AGAINST INTRUDER
A. The Legislature hereby recognizes that the citizens of the State of Oklahoma have a right to expect absolute safety within their own homes.
B. A person is presumed to have held a reasonable fear of imminent peril of death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another when using defensive force that is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm to another if:
1. The person against whom the defensive force was used was in the process of unlawfully and forcefully entering, or had unlawfully and forcibly entered, a dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle, or if that person had removed or was attempting to remove another against the will of that person from the dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle; and
2. The person who uses defensive force knew or had reason to believe that an unlawful and forcible entry or unlawful and forcible act was occurring or had occurred.
C. The presumption set forth in subsection B of this section does not apply if:
1. The person against whom the defensive force is used has the right to be in or is a lawful resident of the dwelling, residence, or vehicle, such as an owner, lessee, or titleholder, and there is not a protective order from domestic violence in effect or a written pretrial supervision order of no contact against that person;
2. The person or persons sought to be removed are children or grandchildren, or are otherwise in the lawful custody or under the lawful guardianship of, the person against whom the defensive force is used; or
3. The person who uses defensive force is engaged in an unlawful activity or is using the dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle to further an unlawful activity.
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.
E. A person who unlawfully and by force enters or attempts to enter the dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle of another person is presumed to be doing so with the intent to commit an unlawful act involving force or violence.
F. A person who uses force, as permitted pursuant to the provisions of subsections B and D of this section, is justified in using such force and is immune from criminal prosecution and civil action for the use of such force. As used in this subsection, the term “criminal prosecution” includes charging or prosecuting the defendant.
G. A law enforcement agency may use standard procedures for investigating the use of force, but the law enforcement agency may not arrest the person for using force unless it determines that there is probable cause that the force that was used was unlawful.
H. The court shall award reasonable attorney fees, court costs, compensation for loss of income, and all expenses incurred by the defendant in defense of any civil action brought by a plaintiff if the court finds that the defendant is immune from prosecution as provided in subsection F of this section.
I. The provisions of this section and the provisions of the Oklahoma Self-Defense Act, Sections 1290.1 through 1290.26 of this title, shall not be construed to require any person using a pistol pursuant to the provisions of this section to be licensed in any manner.
J. As used in this section:
1. “Dwelling” means a building or conveyance of any kind, including any attached porch, whether the building or conveyance is temporary or permanent, mobile or immobile, which has a roof over it, including a tent, and is designed to be occupied by people;
2. “Residence” means a dwelling in which a person resides either temporarily or permanently or is visiting as an invited guest; and
3. “Vehicle” means a conveyance of any kind, whether or not motorized, which is designed to transport people or property.
Added by Laws 1987, c. 54, § 2, eff. Nov. 1, 1987. Amended by Laws 1995, c. 272, § 57, eff. Sept. 1, 1995; Laws 2006, c. 145, § 2, eff. Nov. 1, 2006.

The scenario you mentioned, wherein you enter a residence you know to be unoccupied aside from the possibility of an intruder, is not explicitly described in the statue. You don't necessarily have a duty to retreat, but the fear of bodily harm is implicit (I know, that's fancy for assumption) on your being in the residence or dwelling. I admit it's a grey area. I wouldn't want to be the test case.

 

[338Shooter]

I think it's pretty clear from that section of the code that you're are incorrect. It isn't even a gray area IMO.

It may not be a bright idea to go in, but it isn't illegal to do so. The BG inside "had unlawfully and forcibly entered a dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle." Plug him.

 

[SMS]

Splitting hairs here, but can't all of this be made moot by the proper articulation of one's actions/intent?

I will not use deadly force to defend my property. I will use deadly force to defend myself if, during the course of attempting to stop someone from stealing my property, my life becomes threatened.

There will be no "stop or I'll shoot" or "freeze, I gotta gun". It will be "may I help you" or "please get off my property"...after that if I am threatened I will act to stop the threat not the burglary, robbery or whatever.

 

[beast1989]

Asking for money? DO NOT try that claptrap here. A robber is demanding money and is threatening violence if his/her demands are not met. Ask the fellow who owned the convenience store on the corner of Wilshire and Broadway Extension. Only you can't ask him because a teenaged girl robbed him and KILLED him. Take your bleeding heart attitude elsewhere.

You have something wrong with you buddy, you should re-read my post and you will see that I DIDNT declare a position. The OP is asking about defense of property and I brung up one of the most frequently occurring types of defense of property situations around without giving my opinion on it.

Here is my opinion, I would love to shoot any BG on my premises whether he is taking my tv or showing me his backside as he ran scared sh!tless at the sight of me and one of my guns in hand. Nonetheless i will follow the law no matter what it is regarding the situation(s) in this thread. fyi being on a gun forum I obviously support the use of weapons in defense scenarios.

 

[inactive]

I think it's pretty clear from that section of the code that you're are incorrect. It isn't even a gray area IMO.

It may not be a bright idea to go in, but it isn't illegal to do so. The BG inside "had unlawfully and forcibly entered a dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle." Plug him.

Except that the code starts by reading "A. The Legislature hereby recognizes that the citizens of the State of Oklahoma have a right to expect absolute safety within their own homes." In the scenario proposed, one is not within their own home. I believe that is what makes it a gray area. It's part of the issue that came into play with Ersland.

But as others have mentioned, there's other factors at play here. I.e. did you know if the dwelling it occupied or not, what was your intent, etc. I simply will state it's far too complex an issue generalize about on an 2A forum and get anything close to a real-world applicable answer

 

[MLR]

You have something wrong with you buddy, you should re-read my post and you will see that I DIDNT declare a position. The OP is asking about defense of property and I brung up one of the most frequently occurring types of defense of property situations around without giving my opinion on it.

Here is my opinion, I would love to shoot any BG on my premises whether he is taking my tv or showing me his backside as he ran scared sh!tless at the sight of me and one of my guns in hand. Nonetheless i will follow the law no matter what it is regarding the situation(s) in this thread. fyi being on a gun forum I obviously support the use of weapons in defense scenarios.

Actually the OP's question was more about what the Constitution says about it and why the laws written later are allowed to nullify what it says.

Michael