Meanwhile… In California…
A group of kids with guns steal a Corvette directly out of the drive way of somebody’s house.
RING camera picks up one of the robbers saying “Don’t come out. If you come out I will shoot you. Don’t lose your life over a car.”
For years California… pic.twitter.com/hV2zPkn2KW
— World Peace Movement (@darren_stallcup) April 17, 2024
In California, of course not.
But I’m curious about other states.
These criminals were threatening the life of the home owner.
Yes, I would be scared of one of these punks firing a round through a window at me while I called the cops.
I wonder if Florida or Texas would allow a claim for self defense if the owner fired a round at the person threating to kill them.
unless its been changed( have to check) trespassing criminals can be escorted off property at gun point. and if you are threatened by unwanted people on your property- bang bang… if they are “simply” stealing property you have to be a good witness… how about 30 pounds of tannerite in the trunk? I mean fuk, when its recovered you probably won’t want it back so wait til its a hundred yards away… heh. (just kidding)…
They’re on your property, committing a violent crime, issuing death threats.
.
I’d never vote to convict.
I just addressed this from the Florida perspective in a previous post by Miguel “The outcome we wish we could have v. Local Legal Reality”
Read here for my Florida opinion
https://areaocho.com/my-florida-opinion/
Well put!
.
Bleeding-heart types like to say things like, “It’s just stuff! Why would you advocate using force to protect stuff?”
.
My response: “It’s not about the ‘stuff’. The criminals threatened the owner’s life to get that ‘stuff’; they clearly value the ‘stuff’ over the owner’s life. I advocate the owner taking those threats at face value and using force to defend his life. The ‘stuff’ is ancillary.”
Good opinion Divemedic. Question, I was under the understanding that FL SS 812.133 “Carjacking” was within the FL SS 776.012, “Use or threatened use of force in defense of person”, which would not allow for deadly force to be used in an “unoccupied car theft” situation. Subsection (2) of 776.012 includes “Forcible Felony” which includes “Carjacking”, and all three legal steps of reasoning here must be under the overall legal premise of “A Threat to Persons” context. So have you considered this potential counter argument? And if so, what is your response?
.
I will point out as you did, that once this thug issued a deadly threat to persons, according to Florida law 776.012 (2) was met and deadly force was a lawful option. But since no one was in the car it would not qualify under the Florida Carjacking definition as presented in 776.012 (2)
I will add this post after listening to Andrew Branca’s class which addressed this video. In all states except Texas, (which has several conditions which need to be met before you can legally use deadly force for mere personal property, which was the case in this video if it were to occur in Texas), you cannot use deadly force to defend mere personal property because there was no initial threat or deadly threat in the course of the theft of an unoccupied vehicle–no threat to persons.
.
And even after the thief issued deadly threats to the homeowners if they came outside to confront them, if you did go outside, even in Florida, you’d be viewed by prosecutors as having gone to the deadly force fight, and would be judged as a mutual combatant, and would lose the legal right to claim self-defense.
.
Even in my scenario where I said you could go outside, and surprise the thieves and attempt to expel the trespassers off of your property and when doing so, they pulled a gun on you, you could then use deadly force to meet deadly force, but the legal liability would still be very high and most if not all prosecutors would bring charges against you and make you spend more money than the vehicle is worth, when you have to defend yourself in court, and in the end could still go to prison for murder.
.
Is it then worth it to take the chance to defend mere personal property? I think not.
.
The term, Highly Defensible Property means property which involves a deadly threat to persons. So if the crime in question does not involve a threat to persons, you cannot use deadly force. Period!
IANAL. I am a Texan. Texas law provides for the use of deadly force to stop a criminal from stealing after dark.
Again, IANAL.
Not in Tennessee. You can use force to protect property but not lethal force. I don’t know what happens if the non-lethal confrontation *turns* lethal, but you can’t start out by shooting. Every year since at least 2020 there has been a bill introduced into the legislature to allow use of lethal force for protection of property, but as far as I know, it’s never been passed.
But what about the threat to shoot the homeowner?
In NH, I would think the homeowner would be on solid ground. “Don’t come out or I shoot you” is a threat of unlawful deadly force, which authorizes defense by deadly force (RSA 627:4(II)(a)). Does the “don’t come out” part mean a reasonable person can safely assume that staying inside keeps him safe? Not the way I see it, because it is not reasonable to assume a violent criminal will practice restraint. And no duty to retreat kicks in because the homeowner is within his “dwelling or curtilage or anywhere he has a right to be”.
Yeah, about that “It’s just stuff”. No, it isn’t. It’s MY stuff that I spent MY money on that I earned spending some of the time in my life. My life is not forfeit, in pieces or as a whole.
“Fighting words.”
What is legal is one thing. What will happen is another. In Kali self defense on your property IS legal and someone in the act of committing a felony and making lethal threats would meet the standard for self defense.
However the political reality is in EVERY major metropolitan area of Kali the prosecutor WILL seek to imprison the homeowner and will NOT prosecute the criminals. Even if you beat the inevitable criminal charges you will be bankrupt and destroyed. What is legal vs illegal is no longer relevant in America.
The kraziest part about that is, if the DA succeeds in imprisoning the homeowner and freeing the criminal, the criminal now knows which house no longer has anyone there to defend it.
.
I’m sure it’s a feature, not a bug.
.
Why the hell does any sane person still live in Kali?
Had a thought… So, if you had a friend with laser pointer on a long stick (or a remotely controlled laser,) and put a red dot on one of those idiots, I wonder if they would scatter like a pack of rats?
If they then started shooting at the house, I’d be willing to bet return fire would be legal…
Yeah, I know.. Have to set it up so no one in the house was in danger of being hit…
Just thinking out loud, so to speak.
Some assembly required:
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=I9ZmC-wENmc