Is it legal to defend a property of theft?

Status
Not open for further replies.
coswabbit said:
in all 50 states you shoot cuz you think you can and the bad guy becomes deceased...
Click to expand...
Oh, good lord.

MedWheeler addressed the first part of that very well. Whether you "can" (may lawfully) use deadly force will be determined by others after the fact. It should not be first and foremost in a defender's mind at the time of the event. The important issue is that of immediate necessity.

On the second point, people who have been lawfully justified in the use of deadly force have run afoul of the criminal law and have incurred civil liability because they fired "until the bad guy became deceased" when that was not necessary and when they did not have a reasonable basis to believe that it had been.

By the way, it is not up to "the local prosecutor" to decide whether a shooting was justified.
 
Last edited:
Probably ....... But you can bet there`s LOT of legalize that would come into play once you pull the trigger. J s/n.
 
Kleanbore said:
Oh, good lord.

MedWheeler addressed the first part of that very well. Whether you "can" (may lawfully) use deadly force will be determined by hotels after the fact. It should not be first and foremost in a defender's mind at the time of the event. The important issue is that of immediate necessity.

On the second point, people who have been lawfully justified in the use of deadly force have run afoul of the criminal law and have incurred civil liability because they fired "until the bad guy became deceased" when that was not necessary and when they did not have a reasonable basis to believe that it had been.

By the way, it is not up to "the local prosecutor" to decide whether a shooting was justified.
Click to expand...

sorry, who is it up too to decide whether a shooting was justified? let's see now, sheriff decided Zimmerman's shooting was justified...prosecutor tried him...jury acquitted him !

law enforcement investigates and recommends and prosecutor reviews sheriff's investigation results, evaluates chances to successfully get a conviction, and then brings the GJ, and goes to court?

sorry, aftermath activities from the use of deadly force should be first and foremost on every individual's who carries or has a firearm for SD and has convinced themselves they will use DF!!
 
coswabbit said:
sorry, who is it up too to decide whether a shooting was justified? let's see now, sheriff decided Zimmerman's shooting was justified...prosecutor tried him...jury acquitted him !
Click to expand...
You answered your own question.
coswabbit said:
sorry, aftermath activities from the use of deadly force should be first and foremost on every individual's who carries or has a firearm for SD and has convinced themselves they will use DF!!
Click to expand...
One should know what to expect, but one thing should be "first and foremost" on a defender's mind: what is immediately necessary to avoid death or serious harm.
 
HankB said:
Texas' penal code sections 9.41 through 9.44 explicitly defines the circumstances in which deadly force may be used to protect property - the law in other states may differ considerably. A few noteworthy tidbits are that Texas' famous "theft during the night" provision isn't quite the carte blanche provision to shoot a bad guy that some people think it is, and setting traps that may kill or seriously injure a bad guy is illegal.

I remember Joe Horn, My State of Texas gives us a lot of room in this case's!



There's also a discussion of Texas' castle doctrine available, which touches on the use of force to protect property: https://blog.uslawshield.com/castle-doctrine/
Click to expand...
 
Kleanbore said:
You answered your own question.
One should know what to expect, but one thing should be "first and foremost" on a defender's mind: what is immediately necessary to avoid death or serious harm.
Click to expand...

I am truly sorry you missed the analogy, which shows as i stated, the prosecutor has the final say on if an deadly force incident meets statutory criteria of the law of the land defining deadly force, not the sheriff!
 
coswabbit said:
....as i stated, the prosecutor has the final say on if an deadly force incident meets statutory criteria of the law of the land defining deadly force, not the sheriff!
Click to expand...

No he does not.

The prosecutor's role is to decide if the evidence would support the inference that (1) the actor committed acts constituting a crime of violence; and (2) the evidence supports the inference that the act of violence was not justified or excusable; and (3) the evidence is sufficient to convince a jury beyond a reasonable doubt of the actor's criminal culpability. And in some jurisdictions the prosecutor may either choose to or be required to take the questions to a grand jury which will decide if prosecution will go forward.

And if the prosecution goes forward, the jury will have the final say.
 
Shooting a person who poses no physical threat is likely to have serious consequences. i will not shoot a person for stealing my "stuff". That's why I have insurance.
 
Frank Ettin said:
No he does not.

The prosecutor's role is to decide if the evidence would support the inference that (1) the actor committed acts constituting a crime of violence; and (2) the evidence supports the inference that the act of violence was not justified or excusable; and (3) the evidence is sufficient to convince a jury beyond a reasonable doubt of the actor's criminal culpability. And in some jurisdictions the prosecutor may either choose to or be required to take the questions to a grand jury which will decide if prosecution will go forward.

And if the prosecution goes forward, the jury will have the final say.
Click to expand...

with the utmost respect after you take something i posted regarding prosecutor's roles out of context, you then state NO HE DOES NOT, then you go on to completely contradict yourself by explaining the prosecutor does in legalese which is what i stated initially in my post #40 with my original commentary which several members didn't understand regarding the prosecutor's role, so to reiterate, my post #54 used an Zimmerman analogy which again, a member didn't grasp the prosecutor's role so there is where i reiterated the following:

quote:
law enforcement investigates and recommends and prosecutor reviews sheriff's investigation results, evaluates chances to successfully get a conviction, and then brings the GJ, and goes to court?
unquote

which you felt necessary to basically explain in legalese what i stated initially...

now while not a barrister by trade, most can grasp and understand the rudimentary flow of judicial process(es) relatively easily...

bottom line...the law enforcement investigates ~ period. the prosecutor decides if warranted to bring to the GJ his ham sandwich for indictment, and then proceeds to court! (http://www.slate.com/blogs/lexicon_...dict_a_ham_sandwich_was_himself_indicted.html)

so pray tell us 'who does' if the prosecutor does not?
 
Last edited:
coswabbit said:
....so pray tell us 'who does' if the prosecutor does not?
Click to expand...
You apparently conveniently have forgotten what you wrote in post 57, but to remind you:
coswabbit said:
...the prosecutor has the final say on if an deadly force incident meets statutory criteria of the law of the land defining deadly force....
Click to expand...
That's what I was responding to (which is why I quoted it in my response).

Your statement isn't legalese. In fact, it's not even English. "...if an deadly force incident meets statutory criteria of the law of the land defining deadly force..." barely rises to the status of gibberish.

And again, the prosecutor does not "have the final say" about whatever you were trying to say. And I briefly described in good, formal English what the process is.
 
Frank Ettin said:
You apparently conveniently have forgotten what you wrote in post 57, but to remind you:
​
That's what I was responding to (which is why I quoted it in my response).

Your statement isn't legalese. In fact, it's not even English. "...if an deadly force incident meets statutory criteria of the law of the land defining deadly force..." barely rises to the status of gibberish.

And again, the prosecutor does not "have the final say" about whatever you were trying to say. And I briefly described in good, formal English what the process is.
Click to expand...

thank you for your elegant, but insulting comment...your opinion has been duly noted...

btw, you have stated, my statement regarding the prosecutor has final say if a deadly force incident meets statutory criteria of the land defining deadly force, yet you post the response the prosecutor, how did you put it...
oh ya, The prosecutor's role is to decide if the evidence would support the inference that (1) the actor committed acts constituting a crime of violence; and (2) the evidence supports the inference that the act of violence was not justified or excusable; and (3) the evidence is sufficient to convince a jury beyond a reasonable doubt of the actor's criminal culpability.

now if that isn't a rose by any other name ~ we are saying the same thing...if not, according to you...who has the sole decision on whether a deadly force incident meets any state's statutory deadly force (law of the land) criteria?

and for the record, each and every state has different deadly force statutory criteria in affect for their citizens, each state's different criteria means the sheriff COS county's investigation will consider different statutory elements than say SF's county sheriff's investigation; same modality applies with the COS prosecutor vice SF's prosecutor to evaluate against, and if warranted the convened GJ to adjudicate the ham sandwich against...then the courts get to decide innocence/guilt w/ or w/o a jury in attendance! worked well for OJ, Zimmerman, Brady et al., the courts found the prosecutor's case lacking!!

you have belaboured this till you are becoming emotionally biased so i shall state:

have a nice day
 
Ugh, No, just No.
Jurisdictions matter, not all criminal cases go to a County Sheriff. Many municipalities have their own Prosecutor for criminal cases within their jurisdiction. Who will be a different person than the County Prosecutor.

However, Frank's language is perfectly clear. A Prosecutor, having jurisdiction to do so, may press charges against a person or persons for their roles in a crime of violence. But, it is the jury, by way of the very specific machinations of the legal process, which decides the facts of the matter presented.

Juries are the final arbiters on matters of fact, not the prosecutor.
 
CapnMac said:
Ugh, No, just No.
Jurisdictions matter, not all criminal cases go to a County Sheriff. Many municipalities have their own Prosecutor for criminal cases within their jurisdiction. Who will be a different person than the County Prosecutor.

However, Frank's language is perfectly clear. A Prosecutor, having jurisdiction to do so, may press charges against a person or persons for their roles in a crime of violence. But, it is the jury, by way of the very specific machinations of the legal process, which decides the facts of the matter presented.

Juries are the final arbiters on matters of fact, not the prosecutor.
Click to expand...

in zimmerman...per CNN http://www.cnn.com/2012/04/23/justice/florida-zimmerman-timeline/index.html
26 Feb: shooting occurred
March 12: Sanford Police Chief Bill Lee says Zimmerman has not been charged because there are no grounds to disprove his account of the events.
March 14: ... police have concluded their investigation and turned the file over to the state attorney, who will decide whether to file charges.
March 19: The Justice Department announces that it has launched an investigation into Martin's death. Florida Gov. Rick Scott asks state officials to assist in the investigation.
March 22: Police Chief Lee announces that he is stepping down temporarily as head of the department, which has been criticized for its handling of the shooting.
March 22: (Gov) Scott announces that he is appointing State's Attorney Angela Corey of the 4th Judicial Circuit as special prosecutor, replacing Norman Wolfinger.
April 9: Special prosecutor Corey decides against using a grand jury in the case. "We believed, from day one, that they had enough evidence to arrest the killer of Trayvon Martin and now, as the evidence has continued to unfold, we think there has been a plethora of evidence to simply effect probable cause to do an arrest -- not for a conviction, but for an arrest,"
April 11: Zimmerman is charged with second-degree murder in the shooting death of Martin, says special prosecutor Angela Corey.

by that time Zimmerman was no longer in FL!

Please note the sheriff did not charge! so as i stated sheriff has nothing but investigative duties - period!

only due to the politically charged environment was this even brought before the courts!

Oh my, the Zimmerman investigation is over and 23 days later the state attorney, aka prosecutor, decides whether or not to file charges! hummm, something i stated as well, prosecutor reviews, evaluates whether to go to court!

Further, as i stated, the prosecutor is going to decide if they are going to pursue their dream case to make them famous. Corey, for political reasons took the case to trial...and bloody lost!

if juries are final arbiters...why do i need the prosecutor?

Sorry, but juries are arbiters of only the material presented by both the attorney(s), period! Truth has absolutely nothing to do with determining someone's guilt or innocence and in some cases are travesties of justice, Brady is a recent prime example, these occur more regularly than not and accused lack the financial resources to pursue recourse from the judicial profit center!

Oh dear, even the initially assigned Judge was ask to recuse themselves...so much for fair and unbiased, sigh!!

as stated a rose by any other colour is still the prosecutor's role to review investigation, evaluates and then decides if the accused is going to stand trial!
 
coswabbit said:
.... is still the prosecutor's role to review investigation, evaluates and then decides if the accused is going to stand trial!
Click to expand...
But that is not the same as:
coswabbit said:
....the prosecutor has the final say on if an deadly force incident meets statutory criteria of the law of the land defining deadly force, ...
Click to expand...

coswabbit said:
....each and every state has different deadly force statutory criteria in affect for their citizens, each state's different criteria means the sheriff COS county's investigation will consider different statutory elements than say SF's county sheriff's investigation; ...
Click to expand...
The reality is that the use-of-force law, and the standards for justifying an act of violence against another human, are remarkably similar from State to State. Statutes might be organized differently, and sometimes different terms of art might be used. And some States might have different procedures for raising the defense of justified use of force. However, it would be very rare that an act of violence found to be justified in one jurisdiction would be found unjustified in another. Such laws derive from the common root of the Common Law (except perhaps Louisiana law, which is still quite similar to that of other States). The general principles were outlined in post 3 and the links included in that post.
 
Frank Ettin said:
But that is not the same as:
The reality is that the use-of-force law, and the standards for justifying an act of violence against another human, are remarkably similar from State to State. Statutes might be organized differently, and sometimes different terms of art might be used. And some States might have different procedures for raising the defense of justified use of force. However, it would be very rare that an act of violence found to be justified in one jurisdiction would be found unjustified in another. Such laws derive from the common root of the Common Law (except perhaps Louisiana law, which is still quite similar to that of other States). The general principles were outlined in post 3 and the links included in that post.​
Click to expand...
​

Is this post reflective of the legal precision you were previously speaking of Frank?

...remarkably similar...but different?

...derive from the common root...except...

...still quite similar

sorry, but thanks Frank for sharing your expansive opinion explaining on how things are similar...yet different...in your world.
 
coswabbit said:
​

Is this post reflective of the legal precision you were previously speaking of Frank?

...remarkably similar...but different?

...derive from the common root...except...

...still quite similar

sorry, but thanks Frank for sharing your expansive opinion explaining on how things are similar...yet different...in your world.
Click to expand...
What is your point?
 
the point, the forum’s public membership is from vastly differing communities within this great country with their own unique judical statutes, ordinances, smalltown quirks.

as such, having this member and membership be told by the august moderator the language of the law is percise, then almost immediately turn around and unequivocally state their mantra that the laws are the same - but different, well sometimes, ad nauseam

this ambiguous rhetorical being spouted just might, could, or possibly lead a member awry needlessly into the judicial system.

the objective of my reply post was to point out the ambiguity the use of the terms same & different with the hope a member in tim-buc-to doesnt believe the forum’s moderator, a self professed SME, saying the laws in FL are the same in his environment and the bloke in tim-buc-to gets into a jam following the moderator’s advice!
 
coswabbit said:
the point, the forum’s public membership is from vastly differing communities within this great country with their own unique judical statutes, ordinances, smalltown quirks.
Click to expand...
Back to the subject: it is unlawful in all US jurisdictions but one to employ deadly force to defend moveable, tangible property from theft.

In that one, it is lawful to employ deadly force to defend moveable, tangible property from theft only at night, and then only when a number of circumstances exist.

Thus, in this area of the law, there are not really very many differences to be taken into account.

By the way, statures are only one side of the coin. There are also precedential rulings from high courts (common law).

And if there are instances in which ordinances and "small town quirks" enter into use of force law, I'm not aware of them.
 
Kleanbore said:
Back to the subject: it is unlawful in all US jurisdictions but one to employ deadly force to defend moveable, tangible property from theft.

In that one, it is lawful to employ deadly force to defend moveable, tangible property from theft only at night, and then only when a number of circumstances exist.

Thus, in this area of the law, there are not really very many differences to be taken into account.

By the way, statures are only one side of the coin. There are also precedential (sic) rulings from high courts (common law).

And if there are instances in which ordinances and "small town quirks" enter into use of force law, I'm not aware of them.
Click to expand...

dog gone it, i was told by the august moderator it was imperative i cite to reference...

dog gone squared...there is that nebulous concept: "...not really very many differences..."
 
coswabbit said:
there is that nebulous concept: "...not really very many differences..."
Click to expand...
None, outside of Texas, that would matter.

coswabbit said:
i was told by the august moderator it was imperative i cite to reference...
Click to expand...
For the law in Texas, see Post #19.

For the other 49 states and the US territories, you can start at the top and do your own research; I'm mot going to list them all for you. I am supremely confident that you will conclude, as did Texas A&M Professor Mark Hoekstra, who studies the effectiveness of lethal-force provisions in self-defense law, who says "the protection-of-property element of the deadly force law is “pretty unique to Texas.” (Time Magazine, 2013)

Legal Definition of precedential: relating to, having the character of, or constituting precedent.
 
coswabbit said:
so glad the texas statutes havent changed in five years.
Click to expand...
Texas Code Sections 9.41 and 9.42 were enacted in 1973 and were last amended in 1993.

I do not have any idea of what the latest precedential court rulings may be.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Ohio Gun Guy
  • Locked
Defense of Property
Replies
22
Views
908
divemedic
D
L
  • Locked
Lethal force to defend property?
2 3
Replies
60
Views
3K
JagerRanger
J
B
  • Locked
Texas Law - Use of Lethal Force in Defense of Property
Replies
3
Views
944
Frank Ettin
Frank Ettin
N
  • Locked
Legally protecting your property
2
Replies
33
Views
1K
vector40
V
D
  • Locked
Is property important enough to shoot for?
2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Replies
209
Views
8K
Larry Ashcraft
Larry Ashcraft
Back
Top