1. Exit rear of house. Block off their exit. But if I lived in Cali, I’m going to jail if I defend what I have WORKED for.

   and booby traps are illegal ;-(

   1

2. Subsonic ammo…

   1

3. As I’ve said before, thieves are in fact stealing part of your lifespan, not just “stuff” you happen to own, when they take something you worked to acquire.
   .
   The question should not be, do I consider a thief’s life less valuable than my stuff. Rather, it should be whether the thief considers his or her life worth what they’re trying to steal.

   6

   1. They’re stealing your means of getting to work, to earn a living.

      2

   2. It’s often not merely “stuff” that insurance will take care of. Case in point my first car, a ’57 Chevy which was bought brand-new by my grandfather. Insurance won’t do $hit for family history or sentimental value.

      2

4. The world is not becoming a good place when you have to put an electric fence around your property.

   1

   1. Or you’ve decided to raise cattle.

5. this is what happens when liberals run things.. democrats- the party of hate racism and control…as everyone says, it depends on where you live… know your laws inside and out.. I don’t like fences- Murphys laws on combat says “make it hard for the enemy to get in and you can’t get OUT”…
   and as “don” Miguel says- never break your perimeter… pellet rifles are quiet…. and legal, aim for thie ass…. out a barely open window..

   1

   1. A creative D.A. who wants to punish YOU might be able to raise the misdemeanor “assault” charge from the pellet gun to a felony by invoking things like “great fear of bodily injury on the part of the victim [crook]” and point out that a pellet gun is not a toy, but an instrument of severe injury because some kid has shot his eye out in the past.

6. The larger solution is a combination of political and social change; the more immediate solution involves subsonic projectiles, a suppressor, probably some bleach, and a boat; San Jose, after all, is a coastal community that is “large ocean adjacent” as the realtors describe it.

   Seem harsh? Really? How long before that same group returns after they’ve doped out when you are not home.

   4

7. “Our first reaction would be the liberal application of rifle-delivered ballistic behavioral pills from a position of cover and/or concealment after calling the regional constabulary.”

   I’d refute the last part, and go with, police your brass. they make some nice brass catchers for rifles now.

   2

8. Are CS grenades still available?

   These yutes did threaten deadly force, so……

   2

9. On one forum I’m a member of, one respondent commented, “I’m petty enough that I might not throw lead them . . . but there’d be some slugs through the engine. Because if I can’t have it, neither can you!”

   3

   1. As much as I like this thinking, lol, in some states this would be a very expensive and legally risky strategy. Florida…..not so much. But even so, I would take a different tactic.

   2. Tires are easier to replace.

      3

10. The criminal element of society is becoming more educated in how they can use self-defense laws against their victims. I teach that you never let the criminal threatening you–in this case by trespassing in order to commit a felony–about your position or intentions until the threatening person is within your jeopardy zone, meaning he sees you and engaged you instead of fleeing from the scene of his criminal felony act.
    .
    I do not advise you to go to the fight, but instead to remain at a tactical safe place of protective cover. It’s perfectly legal to investigate trespassers on your property for the purpose of expelling them from your property. Surprise them by verbally ordering them off your property. And if they should respond with a verbal deadly threat to you, or worse, reveal a deadly weapon, you are then in a lawful situation to use deadly force until the deadly threat has stopped.
    .
    It doesn’t matter if they are in the open and you’re out of their direct line of sight behind cover, or within your Castle, which could be your home or vehicle—-if you happen to live in Florida a vehicle is your Castle–know your state’s laws regarding ‘deadly threats against persons’ as when you’re in your vehicles.
    .
    A weapon mounted video camera and or home security camera are going to be required to prove all the elements of a lawful use-of-force self-defense event. Remember, never go outside your Castle to engage in a deadly force event a vehicle is not worth risking your life.
    .
    In Florida I can go outside my Castle any time I desire with a pistol in hand with the weapon camera rolling. And in this case a deadly threat does not occur until I point the gun at the unarmed trespasser, simply having the gun at a position of ready does not constitute a deadly threat. However, when the trespasser presents or appears to present a deadly threat or a deadly weapon of any kind, then and only then does a deadly threat occur against me. But even then, I won’t shoot until I see positive confirmation of a real deadly threat which I know is being captured on video.

    1

    1. Georgia allows for deadly force in cases of forcible felony. Forcible felony is defined a felony where threat of or use of violence is involved. Theft of vehicle exceeding $25000 in value is a Felony, but if it’s worth only $5k-$25k it could be a misdemeanor…..
       You could claim the threat alone was sufficient, but you’d have to justify breaking perimeter and confronting them, armed of course, so not really clear.

       1. In every state but Texas, the criminal act must include a threat to persons before deadly force can lawfully be used. Mere personal property, such as the case in this video, does not qualify for the use of deadly force in 49 states. If you go to the deadly force threat, you lose the right to self-defense and deadly self-defense because you engaged in mutual combat. The value of the vehicle does not come into play. And Forcible Felony and an Aggravated Felony when no threat to persons is occurring, does not allow for you to use deadly force.
          .
          Vehicle Theft, no matter how much deadly force threats are made to the vehicle owner who is not in the vehicle, does not change this prohibition. And in this case the homeowner-vehicle owner saw no gun nor weapon and could have gone outside to expel the trespassers off his property and upon seeing a weapon or upon being physically attacked by four guys, could have used his gun to defend against the deadly threat and a prosecutor would have more than enough legal standing to bring charges against the vehicle owner because he went to the fight.
          .
          The criminal element of society knows the law, and in this case this thug knew the law and used it to his legal advantage. If you want the legal right to shot in this case, you must move to Texas. And btw, the cost of pretrial expenses would exceed the cost of a brand-new Corvette.
          .
          The comments which assert that you can lawfully use deadly force in this scenario are mistaken, because they have extracted sections of statutes without understanding the overall context of the statute and don’t know how the statutes have been historically applied in previous similar cases.

11. Texas Penal Code 9.42
    Under Tex. Pen. Code § 9.42, the use of deadly force may be justified to prevent imminent arson, burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, theft during the nighttime, or criminal mischief during the nighttime, where the land or property cannot otherwise be protected or recovered.
    We do things a little different than California

    4

    1. How is “criminal mischief” defined? That one could be interesting.

       1. Texas Penal code 28.03 addresses that specific.
          Based on a rough estimation of the value of a Corvette, looks like 3rd degree felony.
          Acting the fool after dark moves it from shenanigans to reload.
          The video is an argument for LCMs (or as the cognoscenti call them ‘magazines’)

Comments are closed.