[Ukraine Train]

I live and co-op in Ohio and go to school in Michigan so answers concerning both states are welcome. My car was broken into at my co-op job and I had all my stereo equipment stolen so I know first hand this area isn't safe. Flint, MI has a very high rate of car thefts/break-ins, though so far I haven't been hit there. Anyway, if I hear someone outside can I go investigate with shotgun in hand? The intent would not be to shoot the thief in order to protect my property but to have the gun as a deterrent and in case he attempts to attack me. I will first call the police but by the time they get there the perps will be gone, at least in Flint where they have bigger fish to catch. I've invested waaay too much time working on my car just to have some low life tear it up (again).

[shootist2121]

I would say no...You are taking the fight to them!...You are the one putting yourself into possible danger...He can shoot you and claim self defense. ..As you had the oppertunity to not confront the perk...It's sad that we can't really go and protect our property...But that's possibly the out look you face from the Law.

Just my two cents though...

Be afe...ps...MOVE!

:cool:

[Zeke Menuar]

The law as I understand it in my state is you can't shoot someone commiting a property crime. I use this as a guideline. My stuff isn't worth going to jail for and my stuff isn't worth shooting someone over. You have to be in serious immediate danger in order to use deadly force to defend yourself. This is Oregon law. Your state law may vary.

However, when I lived in Springfield there were two attempts to break into my car. Both times just the sound of a 12ga pump shotgun was enough to chase off the bad guys.

There was a case in Corvallis when a homeowner applied some buckshot to the backside of a BG breaking into his car. The homeowner was charged with assault?(not sure of the actual charges). The Homeowner was aquitted, the BG went to jail and couldn't sit down for awhile.

Buy a copy of your state statutes regarding the use of deadly force, and/or consult a lawyer. Might keep you out of jail.

ZM

[Smoke]

If you display a gun to deter someone from stealing your stuff, the BG may pull a gun to save his own butt.

You have just escalated a property crime into a homicide. And you may be the dead one.

Food for thought.

Most states frown on you pulling a weapon unless your life is in eminant danger. Trying to save your CD player doesn't count.

As others have said read your own states laws regarding this. I know a couple of cops that work the high crime area (Warren MI) and from talking to them I don't think they would recommend this.

Which reminds me. I know it is Warren PD policy that every gun used in a crime (could be yours) is thrown in the shredder. If you display a gun to run off the BG, and it works, and the BG calls the cops. You could still be detained, charged with brandishing and lose your gun.

More FFT.

[Ukraine Train]

You guys make good points. I might as well just put a lawnchair up to my window and watch the perp have at it while I wait for the cops to not arrive on time.lol :banghead:

[Unisaw]

My philosophy:
Insurance protects against economic loss from property theft.
A firearm protects against an imminent loss of your life.

[Smoke]

Insurance protects against economic loss from property theft. A firearm protects against an imminent loss of your life.

I wish I could be that articulate and concise.:(

[TallPine]

Insurance protects against economic loss from property theft.

What about the economic loss of paying insurance premiums?

[Zip06]

TallPine - What about the economic loss of being convicted of manslaughter and spending 5 years in the clink? What about the economic loss of paying the judgement on the civil lawsuit that would surely be brought against you in a shooting.

[rajaniblue]

An economic loss to me is not worth the potential of jail time and/or hassle to get charges cleared on use of deadly force to defend such property. I would even worry about brandishment charges, because our law is pretty clear that you can't use deadly force to defend property.

As someone already said, property losses are what insurance is for.

I carry concealed and have no second thoughts about using my gun to protect my own life, or the life of my family and those around me, but property is not worth it.

I have had my car broken into during the last 12 months. Nearly $2000 in stolen checks written out to various merchants, stolen phone used for drug deal calls and long distance before I could get it disconnected, almost $1000 in property taken from my car including my daughters winter coat (!). Yes it was a hassle getting the check issue straightened out, and yes, I don't feel safe in my own neighborhood after this, but it's still not worth deadly force.

They come in my house and threaten me, however, and they are toast.

[TallPine]

Zip, the point I was trying to make was that you are still losing to the thief even when insured.

If you live in a high crime area, your insurance premuims become a sort of "protection money" - only you pay it to a different kind of mob.

Still doesn't mean that it is wise to get into a gun confrontation.

Now, in my own case, I will always confront someone in my yard or driveway without my permission, especially at night. Much better to confront them outside than inside the house. But I live on 40 acres 25 miles out from town and the nearest (only) deputy.

[Carlos]

DEFENSE OF PROPERTY IN OREGON

This is a brief blurb of a case under Oregon law that I grabbed off internet after reading this post.

“Under our Code, the killing of a human being is justifiable, when committed by a person "to prevent the commission of a felony upon the property of such person, or upon property in his possession, or upon or in any dwelling house where such person may be." Or. L. § 1909, subd. 2. And such killing is generally denominated by criminal law writers as a homicide *475 committed in self-defense. To point a gun at a midnight burglar to prevent his felonious purpose is an act of self-defense; but neither the deceased nor his companions were engaged in the commission of a crime when the defendant pointed his gun at and towards them.”
State v. Trent, 259 P. 893 Or., 1927.

This is obviously an old case. Further research reveals:

“Defense of persons or property can justify otherwise unlawful show or threat of force. ORS 161.209.” State ex rel. Juvenile Dept. of Coos County v. Poston, 873 P.2d 429 Or.App.,1994.

Another last blurb:

Defense of persons or property can also justify an otherwise unlawful show or threat of force. In State v. Lockwood, 43 Or.App. 639, 603 P.2d 1231 (1979), the defendant was convicted of menacing for pointing an unloaded pistol at a group of juveniles parked in his driveway. We reversed the conviction, holding that the defendant was entitled to jury instructions on self-defense and defense of property, because the evidence supported his theory that he could reasonably believe that some show of force was necessary to defend against damage to his property and the imminent use of unlawful physical force. The defendant had been vandalized in the past and knew that one of the juveniles in the car had a reputation for vandalism. The occupants of the car had earlier confronted a friend of the defendant's son. The car already had driven past the defendant's home three times that night, each time speeding away. The defendant could see that there were four people in the car, the hour was late, and he knew that the car belonged to a juvenile who had challenged others to fight with him.

This is all I have time to comment on this at this time, but I will try and get the statute up regarding protection of property for Ohio as well after work today. I did read a lot of Oregon defense of person or persons information and there’s a very clear duty to retreat, not seek out BG, etc.


Carl

[Zip06]

TallPine - If I lived out in the middle of nowhere as you describe, I would find it very difficult to conclude other than the BG was there to cause you grevious bodily harm.

[Carlos]

OREGON REVISED STATUTES

161.229. Defense of property


A person is justified in using physical force, other than deadly physical force, upon another person when and to the extent that the person reasonably believes it to be necessary to prevent or terminate the commission or attempted commission by the other person of theft or criminal mischief of property.

however,

161.219. Deadly physical force in defense of a person; limitations

Notwithstanding the provisions of ORS 161.209, a person is not justified in using deadly physical force upon another person unless the person reasonably believes that the other person is:
(1) Committing or attempting to commit a felony involving the use or threatened imminent use of physical force against a person; or
(2) Committing or attempting to commit a burglary in a dwelling; or
(3) Using or about to use unlawful deadly physical force against a person.

Hmm, I “can” shoot a burglar.

161.225. Defense of premises


(1) A person in lawful possession or control of premises is justified in using physical force upon another person when and to the extent that the person reasonably believes it necessary to prevent or terminate what the person reasonably believes to be the commission or attempted commission of a criminal trespass by the other person in or upon the premises.
(2) A person may use deadly physical force under the circumstances set forth in subsection (1) of this section only:
(a) In defense of a person as provided in ORS 161.219; or
(b) When the person reasonably believes it necessary to prevent the commission of arson or a felony by force and violence by the trespasser.
(3) As used in subsection (1) and subsection (2)(a) of this section, "premises" includes any building as defined in ORS 164.205 and any real property. As used in subsection (2)(b) of this section, "premises" includes any building.

Now, does premises include a car on the premises? It might. I remember a pretty recent case on the news where an old man in northeast Portland shot a car thief on his property. Grand jury did not indict as I recall.

It’s a thin line. I’d feel pretty confident if I had to shoot anybody while they were unlawfully in my house. I’d never sleep again, but that’s a different story.

Now to Ohio law...

[Carlos]

Ohio case law.

State v. Richmond
Not Reported in N.E.2d
Ohio App.,1990

* * *

Appellant next asserts that the jury's verdict was wrong since he adequately proved by a preponderance of the evidence that he acted in self-defense of himself and his property.
Once again, the facts of this case do not support appellant's self-defense claim. Deadly force, which was used by appellant, cannot be used to defend one's property. State v. Daugherty (1971), 26 Ohio App.2d 159, 162. Deadly force is only proper as a defense when a person fears that deadly force is about to be used by an aggressor. State v. Jackson (1986), 22 Ohio St.3d 281, 284. In the present case, comparing the threat posed by appellant holding a weapon, the unarmed Wilson did not present the type of threat which would justify the use of deadly force. Accordingly, appellant's fourth assignment of error is found not well-taken.

No deadly force protecting property.

[Andrew Rothman]

Michigan:

http://www.michiganlegislature.org/mileg.asp?page=getObject&objName=mcl-750-234b&queryid=4714023&highlight=self%20defense#1


...an individual who intentionally discharges a firearm at a facility that he or she knows or has reason to believe is a dwelling or an occupied structure is guilty of a felony, punishable by imprisonment for not more than 4 years, or a fine of not more than $2,000.00, or both....
...Subsections (1) and (2) do not apply to an individual who discharges a firearm in self-defense or the defense of another individual.

[Airboss]

Deadly Force Can be used to protect property and to prevent the commision of a Felony in Texas and it doesn't have to be just your property.
If my neighbor ask me to to look after his place while he is gone I can use deadly force to do that.

[Carlos]

Glad I can pretty much do the same thing in Oregon.

[Bigjake]

well, you ought to consider a badass paintball gun to keep you company in your lawn chair! something electric should do nicely. old shockers usualy run for a good price, hose the thives with paint, and if they want to escalate the situation, you have your 12 bore handy.

[0007]

Paintball gun - good idea, but keep the paintballs in the freezer until you're ready to use them and aim for the head, heh, heh, heh.

[standingbear]

frozen paintballs..ouuuuch!i would use a dart gun,drug them like an animal and park their sorry ... in front of the po station with a note"this moron has been breaking into cars"-kinda like a safari.Thats if i could get away with it.ill stick to a full auto bb gun or oops...shultzy got out,dang german shepard just loves the taste of meat.

[k say]

if im on the jury the homeowner will be a free man each and every time * guaranteed* should go "halt freeze" smack up side the head with barrel , and if doesnt play dead (well ) :fire: i dont work so a a a thief can rob me WITHOUT a fight. each and every time

[DMK]

Anyway, if I hear someone outside can I go investigate with shotgun in hand? The intent would not be to shoot the thief in order to protect my property but to have the gun as a deterrent and in case he attempts to attack me.The measuring stick I use is this:

Assume that if you present your firearm, you will be arrested. You will need a lawyer, you will need to defend yourself in court and risk ending up in prison.

Now ask yourself this, what in your life is worth defending to that measure? Your life, your families lives, the lives of your friends, perhaps even the life of an obviously innocent stranger. Little else IMO, certainly not my car.

Do not go investigating a non-life threatening crime. Get your defensive weapon, call 911 and find someplace secure inside your home where you may observe and report.

[sanchezero]

While I wouldn't advocate chasing the underpriveledged hope of tommorow with your shotgun, I would recommend at least verbally confronting them. I've had my car broken into, my girlfriend and mother have had their cars broken into and stolen.

Now, I 'speak' to anyone I see loitering in my lot anywhere near the cars :) and I'm of course armed, tho they don't know that. I've run a coupla those entrepeneur types off with a few encouraging words. I haven't been threatened at all; mostly they act like it's a mistake and they're slim-jimming the wrong car, 'Dag, shorty, my car look juz like dat jank. Sheeeeeit, sorry bout dat, I locked my keys in my car but I was so bombed I forgit where I lef it at.'

My car is kindof a turd so my insurance isn't the fancy 'we'll getya a new one' kind ;) , just the cheap stuff. It's worth it to me to yell at someone and save myself a few hundred bucks or even a coupla K.

[TheOtherOne]

You could have things like this in the law:

76-2-402 (http://www.livepublish.le.state.ut.us/lpBin20/lpext.dll/InfobaseUtahCode/title18259.htm/chapter18289.htm/section18309.htm). Force in defense of person -- Forcible felony defined.

(1) A person is justified in threatening or using force against another when and to the extent that he or she reasonably believes that force is necessary to defend himself or a third person against such other's imminent use of unlawful force. However, that person is justified in using force intended or likely to cause death or serious bodily injury only if he or she reasonably believes that force is necessary to prevent death or serious bodily injury to himself or a third person as a result of the other's imminent use of unlawful force, or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.

....

(4) For purposes of this section, a forcible felony includes aggravated assault, mayhem, aggravated murder, murder, manslaughter, kidnapping, and aggravated kidnapping, rape, forcible sodomy, rape of a child, object rape, object rape of a child, sexual abuse of a child, aggravated sexual abuse of a child, and aggravated sexual assault as defined in Title 76, Chapter 5, and arson, robbery, and burglary as defined in Title 76, Chapter 6. Any other felony offense which involves the use of force or violence against a person so as to create a substantial danger of death or serious bodily injury also constitutes a forcible felony. Burglary of a vehicle, defined in Section 76-6-204, does not constitute a forcible felony except when the vehicle is occupied at the time unlawful entry is made or attempted


I wonder if letting a dog out would be considered "using force"? If someone was breaking into my car and I had a good guard dog, I would want to just open the front door and let it out for it's midnight bathroom visit.

[Andrew Rothman]

Ohio:
http://onlinedocs.andersonpublishing.com/oh/lpExt.dll/PORC/ffc0/1016e/102e7?

(no civil liability for shooting a trespasser)
The owner, lessee, or renter of real property...who resides on the property is not liable in damages to a trespasser on the property...for injury, death, or loss to person or property of the trespasser that allegedly is caused by the owner, lessee, renter, or family member if...The owner, lessee, renter, or family member is inside a building.... The trespasser has made, is making, or is attempting to make an unlawful entry into the building...The owner, lessee, renter, or family member uses reasonably necessary force to repel the trespasser...