Can deadly force be used to recover property?

[Carl N. Brown]

In the Florida case of Greyston Garcia, the thief turned and swung at Garcia's head with a sack of stolen radios which sack of heavy metal was regarded as a potentially lethal weapon, and Garcia stabbed the man. There are details to the case and can be looked up at the Tampa Bay Times website on Florida Stand Your Ground cases at http://www.tampabay.com/stand-your-ground-law/fatal-cases

The lethal force was used to counter lethal force employed by the thief, not to attempt to recover stolen property, or at least that was Garcia's argument and the judge agreed with the argument.

 

[Kleanbore]

Posted by verge: The OP's question was:

Scenario: thug comes up behind you, punches you in the back of the head. You fall to the floor and the thug takes your wallet, phone, etc and starts to walk away. Unbeknownst to the thug you are carrying concealed. You draw your weapon and demand the thug stop and return you property. He keeps walking, totally ignoring you. Are you justified if you shoot or must you just stand and watch as your personal property disappears down the street?

My response was:

The answer to your question is these cases generally do not make it to court in Texas. If they are referred to the Grand Jury, which many of them are not, they are generally killed, "No Billed", by the Grand Jury.

1. Whether or not such cases generally make" it to court in Texas" does not answer the question;
2. Surely you have learned by now that if you do shoot someone in Texas, the case will be referred to the Grand Jury, period; and finally,
3. You should surely have learned by now that a case is not "killed" if it happens to be no billed by a Grand Jury.

Any questions?

 

[bushmaster1313]

Whatever the "law" might be, you must ask yourself if it it is right to kill a human being in order to recover property.

 

[BLB68]

Well, I have a pretty good idea of what our lawyers' qualifications are.

verge, on the other hand, sounds like what we used to call a barracks lawyer in the service.

Those are almost as dangerous as barracks barbers in my experience.

Getting back to that swift kick in the rear that rc brought up earlier:

Suppose you get waylaid as in the OP. You recover, see the guy strolling away with your stuff, and try to use unarmed physical force to get your stuff back.

Suppose the other person gets the upper hand in that altercation and you now have reasonable fear for your life. The other person has indicated a desire to kill or seriously kill you ("I'm gonna kill you man!") -- in the most obvious way. The other person has the means to do so (Say, he takes out a knife after pinning you to the ground, not just disparity of force due to size difference or anything else that's less clear). The threat is imminent.

At this point, you draw your weapon and fire.

Also, let's not assume any easy outs in regards to your decision to reengage, such as any claim of not thinking clearly from the initial head injury. Instead, assume you bear the full responsibility for your decision to initiate the second engagement.

In general, how would the law view this situation? I'm thinking this is a pretty dicey one, since the first conflict was broken off, and you initiated the second encounter.

 

[verge]

1. Whether or not such cases generally make" it to court in Texas" does not answer the question;
2. Surely you have learned by now that if you do shoot someone in Texas, the case will be referred to the Grand Jury, period; and finally,
3. You should surely have learned by now that a case is not "killed" if it happens to be no billed by a Grand Jury.

Any questions?

1. It answers the question better than a reference to a case about a clerk shooting someone for stealing beer from a convenience store. It answers the question better than a reference to a case about a guy shooting someone for denting his car.

2. Yes conceded the case will go to the Grand Jury.

3. I never argued that a no bill "killed" a case. You could get no billed today and then, with no statute of limitations on murder, 10 years from now the prosecution could find out that you setup the scenario in order to commit murder and you could be charged.

 

[verge]

Well, I have a pretty good idea of what our lawyers' qualifications are.

verge, on the other hand, sounds like what we used to call a barracks lawyer in the service.

Those are almost as dangerous as barracks barbers in my experience.

Getting back to that swift kick in the rear that rc brought up earlier:

Suppose you get waylaid as in the OP. You recover, see the guy strolling away with your stuff, and try to use unarmed physical force to get your stuff back.

Suppose the other person gets the upper hand in that altercation and you now have reasonable fear for your life. The other person has indicated a desire to kill or seriously kill you ("I'm gonna kill you man!") -- in the most obvious way. The other person has the means to do so (Say, he takes out a knife after pinning you to the ground, not just disparity of force due to size difference or anything else that's less clear). The threat is imminent.

At this point, you draw your weapon and fire.

Also, let's not assume any easy outs in regards to your decision to reengage, such as any claim of not thinking clearly from the initial head injury. Instead, assume you bear the full responsibility for your decision to initiate the second engagement.

In general, how would the law view this situation? I'm thinking this is a pretty dicey one, since the first conflict was broken off, and you initiated the second encounter.

I would first say this is not the question being posed by the OP.

Second, I would say in most states you are right, pretty dicey. In Texas, I don't know about your scenario but I am pretty sure if you just pulled out your CCW and shot them you would be no billed.

Again not saying that is right or wrong that is simply my simple layman's understanding.

 

[351 WINCHESTER]

You will go to prison for a very long time and loose everything you have for shooting someone in the back in an effort to get your stolen property back. Don't even think about it.

 

[BLB68]

I would first say this is not the question being posed by the OP.

Being the one who posed the question, I'm aware of that, but thanks for pointing it out.

 

[verge]

In the words of Rick Perry ... Oops.

 

[ranydl]

Washington State CWL

13 years ago I lived in Oly WA and had a "Concealed Weapon License". This allowed me to carry a handgun, knife, or virtually any lethal or non-lethal device that I wanted. It did not specify what the weapon could be. As to use of deadly force it stated: "The use of deadly force is permitted towards an individual who is in the act of committing a felony upon you or anyone in your immediate vicinity". There have been numerous test cases in that state regarding that law and they have always been upheld in favor of a licensed or unlicensed shooter. The judges decision in one case said: An individual untrained in the law has more latitude in protecting themselves than a trained policeman would. Another judge dismissed with prejudice a case where a burglar was shot in the yard (in the back with a shotgun) after leaving the house and was running across the yard to the street. In a case very close to me, a licensed man was in a gun store when a street person jumped across the counter and was trying to put cartridges in a piston that the clerk was showing him. He never got the cylinder closed before the gentleman put a hollow point through the middle of his chest. There was no judicial action of any kind towards the shooter. In another case a judge rendered the opinion: "This is how the law reads, if you don't like the verdict, change the law".

The law may be different today, but I think it is still very much the same. Also remember that you have to live with yourself after you take a life. Some people can
resume a normal life after, some people never get over it.

 

[Frank Ettin]

13 years ago I lived in Oly WA and had a "Concealed Weapon License". This allowed me to carry a handgun, knife, or virtually any lethal or non-lethal device that I wanted. It did not specify what the weapon could be. As to use of deadly force it stated: "The use of deadly force is permitted towards an individual who is in the act of committing a felony upon you or anyone in your immediate vicinity". There have been numerous test cases in that state regarding that law and they have always been upheld in favor of a licensed or unlicensed shooter. The judges decision in one case said: An individual untrained in the law has more latitude in protecting themselves than a trained policeman would. Another judge dismissed with prejudice a case where a burglar was shot in the yard (in the back with a shotgun) after leaving the house and was running across the yard to the street. In a case very close to me, a licensed man was in a gun store when a street person jumped across the counter and was trying to put cartridges in a piston that the clerk was showing him. He never got the cylinder closed before the gentleman put a hollow point through the middle of his chest. There was no judicial action of any kind towards the shooter. In another case a judge rendered the opinion: "This is how the law reads, if you don't like the verdict, change the law".

A little vague, and obviously a lot of detail has been omitted. And the detail is very important.

How about some citations or documentation so that we can look for the missing detail and verify the exact circumstances?

 

[P.O.2010]

As a private citizen, almost certainly not. As a Soldier, the answer is a qualified yes.

Army Regulation 190-14 concerns the carrying of firearms by personnel assigned to perform law enforcement and security duties. AR 190-14 Chapter 3-2 f(2) and Chapter 3-2f(3) specifically authorizes Soldiers assigned to guard "assets involving national security" and "assets...inherently dangerous to others" to use deadly force to prevent theft.

When I served as a Military Policeman we were explicitly instructed that any person attempting to steal or destroy information classified "Top Secret", any operable weapon system or live ammunition/explosives was subject to the use of deadly force and that we were authorized to open fire even if the thief or saboteur was unarmed. We were instructed to attempt to use lesser force (i.e. unarmed self defense or a nightstick) before firing and to give a warning to halt where possible. That being said our orders were clear - if the only choice was between allowing them to escape or using deadly force we were to use deadly force and to do so without hesitation.

 

[Frank Ettin]

As a private citizen, almost certainly not. As a Soldier, the answer is a qualified yes.

Army Regulation 190-14 concerns the carrying of firearms by personnel assigned to perform law enforcement and security duties. AR 190-14 Chapter 3-2 f(2) and Chapter 3-2f(3) specifically authorizes Soldiers assigned to guard "assets involving national security" and "assets...inherently dangerous to others" to use deadly force to prevent theft....

We're only concerned with what a private citizen may do. The military situation is too far off track.

 

[BLB68]

13 years ago I lived in Oly WA and had a "Concealed Weapon License". This allowed me to carry a handgun, knife, or virtually any lethal or non-lethal device that I wanted. It did not specify what the weapon could be.

These days, it's Concealed Pistol License, and they do mean pistol.

 

[BSA1]

Finally Post #107 raises a key point that has not been discussed...shooting someone who is no longer a threat to the victim in the back.

To quote a movie line from John Wayne in the movie "Rio Bravo";

John T. Chance: [explaining why Joe got beat up] He didn't take too kindly to being arrested for murder.

Joe Burdette: It wasn't murder.

Nathan Burdette: If he says it wasn't murder, why do you say it was?

John T. Chance: Man gets shot that's got a gun, there's room for reasonable doubt. Man gets shot that hasn't got a gun, what would you call it?

To change the movie line slightly;

Man gets shot that's facing you, there's room for reasonable doubt. Man gets shot in the back, what would the jury call it?

The thread has become a free-for-all discussion about Texas law but the O.P. is in Illinois.

 

[tarosean]

Finally Post #107 raises a key point that has not been discussed...shooting someone who is no longer a threat to the victim in the back.

This.

A few months back in OR or WA(?) A criminal steals a mans car from the driveway. man runs out and shoots at car fleeing, taking a pot shot at his car, the one in a million shot strikes perpetrator in the back of the head and kills him. Victim is convicted as he was no longer in "danger".

 

[ROW]

I think you would be in trouble if you killed him, but I bet you could shoot him in the leg and be OK.

 

[gym]

I don't know how far you are allowed to go to stop someone from stealing your possessions, or committing a non violent crime, "like shoplifting", if they continue to do so after you warn them to stop, and they ignore your warning and continue in a non violent way.
I have honestly never thought of it before, as it has never come up. I would think that common sense should prevail in such a situation. What it is he was stealing and the likelihood of him escaping prior to the local law enforcement officer showed up.
If it was your kidney dialysis machine, and you would perish without treatment, you might be ok with stopping him by any means, but perhaps not your waffle iron. Common sense should dictate what sufficient force is and when it can be applied.

 

[Kleanbore]

Posted by ROW: I think you would be in trouble if you killed him, but I bet you could shoot him in the leg and be OK.

ABSOLUTELY NOT!

First, shooting someone anywhere constitutes deadly force.

Second, if you shoot someone and hit the femoral artery, the likelihood that the person will expire is higher than if you hit him twice in the same lung.

 

[Kleanbore]

Folks, let's cut to the chase.

It is unlawful to use deadly force to protect, or to recover. tangible, movable property anywhere except Texas. There is a another thread open on the law in Texas.

It is important to understand that the use of force to prevent a robbery is not considered the same thing as defending property per se. In a robbery, the safety of the person is threatened.

 

[Carl N. Brown]

No ROW. You shoot someone on the leg and they bleed out through the femoral artery, saying "I shot him but I only meant to wound him" aint gonna have much traction with the prosecutor or grandjury, and not much luck with the trial jury and judge either. Use a lethal weapon only with intent to kill a person who is a threat to life or limb. Even if you only miss or hit their foot: lethal force in defense against lethal threat, period.

(first murder in my hometown in three years: boy tried to stop fight between mom and dad, stabbed dad in leg, he bled to death before he reached the emergency room. draw no blood unless you intend to kill and are justified.)

 

[Carl N. Brown]

Kleanbore has a point.

Thief running away with goods, the owners life is not at risk.

Robber facing you with threat of force, or an intruder in the home especially by night, life and limb are at risk.

Different circumstances.

 

[Zoogster]

What annoys me is I think people should have every right to use non deadly force to try and stop a thief.
In fact the law agrees.
Yet if a thief then turns violent or does require deadly force after attempting to stop them with non deadly force society acts as if the person attempting to stop them did something wrong.



It is your right to make a citizen's arrest in most of the nation. It is your right to protect your belongings. Not with deadly force, but with other force required.

In fact as a property owner it is your legal responsibility to enforce your boundaries, not let people on the land, or you give up your rights through things like easements, adverse possession, etc You are required by law to remove or demolish things people build on your land, expel trespassers, and similar things. It is actually what the law requires to maintain legal control in many states. By being a nice guy because it doesn't really bother you too much, or isn't worth it to be confrontational, that person that trespasses regularly has a legal claim for an easement. Later if you want to do something on your own land someone has some rights like for example to retain access or some other crap because you didn't go out and chase them off previously as was your legal requirement. So you might no longer even be able to do what you want with your land as others have gained various rights to portions of it. So if you want to build a different fence, or put some structure or other thing where you want on your own property, you might not even have that freedom anymore because you chose not to be confrontational previously.
By law you must take action to retain rights, even if you would rather not.
Neighbor builds a fence on your land several feet over? Won't remove it? Surveys make it clear where the property lines are? You are required by law to demolish it, or they can own that property within 5 years. No cop will do it, nobody will be sent out to do it, you have to do it. It may upset the neighbor, they may even commit illegal acts or get violent, and it is very likely you will end up in court over it, but the law requires you be confrontational and deal with it.
Lawyers will file motions and bill you for it all you want, but ultimately you are required to act or you forfeit your rights.

As such it seems contradictory that you have to legally take action to stop lesser offenses and be confrontational in things as listed above, yet people act like you are going to far by stopping thieves committing more serious acts.
In some cases it really can impact a person's ability to make a living. I know people that make a living using thier vehicle to transport or deliver things, loss of that vehicle can stop thier income.
I know contractors that make a living with thier tools, many of which are in thier vehicle and are too big heavy and bulky for it to be practical to load and unload every day after work. Someone stealing or damaging them would put a stop to thier income.
Etc Etc
Some property is not just property.

 

[hovercat]

"it is just property"
Theft is slavery. If you try to take the product of my labor without my consent, then you are trying to make me your slave. For an hour, day, month or however long I worked to obtain that property. If it takes me 3 days wages to buy a tool and someone steals it, they just made me a slave to them for 3 days. Yes I can buy another tool, but I cannot get three days back.

 

[Frank Ettin]

"it is just property"
Theft is slavery. If you try to take the product of my labor without my consent...

Nonetheless, the laws relating to the use of force are what they are.