Deadly Force to Protect Property?

Status
Not open for further replies.
R

runawaygun762

Member
Joined
Jul 1, 2006
Messages
5
Location
Kansas
I am new to this forum, so bear with me. As a Soldier, there are certain things I am authorized to use deadly force in order to protect, such as items vital or critical to National Security, sensitive items such as weapons or encryption devices, etc.... My question is this; are there items we as private citizens would be justified in using deadly forse to protect? Obviously I can't go cyclic on some guy trying to steal my trash can, but what if someone is attempting to steal firearms and won't stop when told to do so? Perhaps that is a bad example, but the basic question remains. I am not trying to find a way to "get away with" anything, just curious.
 
I think in Texas at night you can. I may be mistaken though.

Stealing a firearm from you is probably a bad example due to it being a deadly weapon to begin with. But you can't ventilate a guy stealing your lawn mower in almost all the U.S.
 
In almost all of the 50 states it is illegal to use deadly force to protect property. In most states, you can only use deadly force if you, or another innocent, is in immediate danger of death or grave bodily injury. Deadly force can be used against fleeing felons, but only under very limited situations, and someone stealing your stuff, even a gun, would not rise to that level.

In most states, if someone is running away from you with your property and is not a threat to you, if you then shoot them you could be charged with a very serious crime (up to and including murder).

From a financial perspective, most of us have insurance with a reasonable deductible. If someone stole my truck, I'd be out the $1000 deductible. That would barely pay for 4 hours of an attorney's time.

If I shot the perp, I'd need way more than 4 hours of a lawyer's time. At a seminar recently, two prominent defense attorneys here in MA were asked how much a defense against a murder charge would cost. They answered roughly $75,000 plus expenses, and that is only because they would take the case at a significant discount to their hourly rate (because otherwise no one could afford it).
 
My question is this; are there items we as private citizens would be justified in using deadly forse to protect?
Click to expand...

No.

However, one could hypothetically create a law school scenario where deadly force could be applied to property such as say heart medication belonging to a critically ill individual and said individual is undergoing or about to have some sort of life or death reaction to lack of the medication.
 
Depends on your state laws. Here is an example of the Texas statute on using deadly force to protect property:

§ 9.42. DEADLY FORCE TO PROTECT PROPERTY. A person is
justified in using deadly force against another to protect land or
tangible, movable property:

(1) if he would be justified in using force against the
other under Section 9.41; AND

(2) when and to the degree he reasonably believes the
deadly force is immediately necessary:

(A) to prevent the other's imminent commission of
arson, burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, theft during the nighttime, or criminal mischief during the nighttime; OR

(B) to prevent the other who is fleeing immediately after committing burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, or theft during the nighttime from escaping with the property; AND

(3) he reasonably believes that:
(A) the land or property cannot be protected or recovered by any other means; OR

(B) the use of force other than deadly force to protect or recover the land or property would expose the actor or another to a substantial risk of death or serious bodily injury.
Click to expand...

As you can see there are a lot of "reasonable" judgments and factors that will be up to a grand jury to decide in Texas. So far Texas grand juries have been very strong supporters of property rights; but this is one area of law where you do not want to dance too close to the line; because the line can shift on you without much notice.
 
In my particular state you probably would probably be OK in the case of a firearm being stolen because the person is a deadly threat and is also committing a felony and you would have reason to believe they were a threat to society.

My state allows the use of force to defend property but not deadly force, it would have to be in response to a imminent threat posing grave bodily injury which could result from protecting property.
 
As Bart mentions, it's legal here.

A recent case of such a thing occurred and I boldly predicted a Grand Jury would no bill the shooter.

He was indicted a couple of days ago so I couldn't have been more wrong.

It would have to be a pretty extraordinary circumstance for me I have to say, especially watching some court cases lately.

In the specific case you mention, stealing firearms, the question becomes WHERE is he stealing them from? If he's in your house I don't think you are in the realm of simply protecting property. A thief in your house, with a gun, is now an immediate threat I'd say, in just about any circumstance you can think of.
 
Here's Colorado's law:



18-1-706. Use of physical force in defense of property.

A person is justified in using reasonable and appropriate physical force upon another person when and to the extent that he reasonably believes it necessary to prevent what he reasonably believes to be an attempt by the other person to commit theft, criminal mischief, or criminal tampering involving property, but he may use deadly physical force under these circumstances only in defense of himself or another as described in section 18-1-704.


And here is the relevant part that they are refering to in 18-1-704:

(2) Deadly physical force may be used only if a person reasonably believes a lesser degree of force is inadequate and:

(a) The actor has reasonable ground to believe, and does believe, that he or another person is in imminent danger of being killed or of receiving great bodily injury; or

(b) The other person is using or reasonably appears about to use physical force against an occupant of a dwelling or business establishment while committing or attempting to commit burglary as defined in sections 18-4-202 to 18-4-204; or

(c) The other person is committing or reasonably appears about to commit kidnapping as defined in section 18-3-301 or 18-3-302, robbery as defined in section 18-4-301 or 18-4-302, sexual assault as set forth in section 18-3-402, or in section 18-3-403 as it existed prior to July 1, 2000, or assault as defined in sections 18-3-202 and 18-3-203
 
Nowhere else?
Click to expand...
I'm not aware of any state other than TX that allows the use of deadly force for the protection of property. But I am not a lawyer...
 


(A) to prevent the other's imminent commission of
arson, burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, theft during the nighttime, or criminal mischief during the nighttime; OR

(B) to prevent the other who is fleeing immediately after committing burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, or theft during the nighttime from escaping with the property; ...
Click to expand...

Come on, you Texicans, read what the law says not what you think you remember. It's theft and criminal mischief that have the night time restriction. Arson, burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery* are any time of day property crimes that deadly force may be justified. FWIW, the current Bexar County DA refused to press charges against a man who shot and killed a chicken thief at night. Another time, the DA refused to press charges on a bar owner who shot and killed a tagger referencing the criminal mischief at night part of the law.

Here again, though, Austin, Houston and Dallas don't always operate within state law and convictions have been sought.

*in Texas, a weapon used.

​
 
So if criminals begin walking in to homes with unlocked doors and merely stating very politely that they are going to take your money and possessions (with no physical threats of violence), you have no recourse but to let them do it (or hit them on the head with a whiffle-ball bat or some other non-lethal weapon, and hope they get annoyed enough to leave)???

I'm sorry. I guess I haven't reached a state of "enlightenment" that allows me to be this "civilized". I think every criminal (no matter what state) should have the understanding that, if he enters a home with the intent to rape, murder, OR steal, then he runs the risk of losing his life. I realize some state legislatures don't see it this way.
 
As mentioned only in Texas and only under certain circumstances.
However what is moraly right or financial smart can be a very different action.
As mentioned an insurance deductable is a fraction of the cost of a lengthy trial.

Texas is unique in a few ways on the use of deadly force.
Both the property aspect, and the aspect highlighted by Bartholomew Roberts: that someone can shoot a criminal fleeing the scene after commiting certain crimes if you do not believe they can be caught another way.
So if they just commited a burglary on your home, you cannot tell thier identity, and they are using a stolen vehicle (as far as you know the license plate or vehicle is not connected to them and would not trace back to them) that won't be traced to them to do things they very likely will get away and the police unable to track them.
Nowhere else would that be a situation that allowed shooting a fleeing individual except Texas.
The same goes if they just threw a molotov cocktail at your home and are now running away unarmed. They can even be shot in the back in Texas unarmed.
Even someone that robs you and then turns away and is fleeing can be shot to prevent thier escape.
So it is legal to shoot to prevent the escape of someone no longer posing a threat if you believe they will get away and not be brought to trial otherwise in Texas. You will not find that anywhere else.


Now what is legal and the right course of action can be very different. It is nice to have options, even more than you should or wish to take just in case you have exceptional circumstances.

For example if you used lethal force against a gang member that tried to victimize you in the past, or were a witness against them and you now have gang members or family of such criminals coming to your home trying to burn it down or harass you and they routinely escape and the police are unable to locate them.
In most states you would have to deal with that while the police were unable to provide any protection or put a stop to it.
Letting them get away just means they will come back another day in such circimstances and pose a deadly threat to you in the future once again, and it is legal to shoot thier shadowy figures running back to thier cars in Texas if they just commited certain crimes.
It also mean non lethal rounds like bean bags or the new round that delivers taser like shocks would be legal to shoot at a fleeing criminal that just commited such crimes, because doing so is lethal force, but in Texas that can be legal.


Keep in mind shooting a firearm is always deadly force, so even when not trying to kill or wound the criminal but doing something like trying to disable a fleeing criminal's vehicle or using less lethal rounds so they cannot escape you would be technicaly using deadly force, and if they just commited certain crimes that is legal in Texas.
Most other places you have little legal ground to stand on.
So that aspect of Texas law can protect a person even when the deadly force is not meant to kill, just to stop them so they can be arrested by police and brought to trial after commiting certain crimes.


Now in other states someone in the process of stealing firearms can be posing a deadly threat to you. Using deadly force in such circumstances would not be to defend property, but to protect yourself from the criminal armed with a gun. Even an unloaded gun makes a formidable weapon as a blunt object. If however they are fleeing with an unloaded firearm in all states besides Texas it would be illegal to use deadly force. If it is loaded it could depend whether you are in danger or not, are they fleeing to their vehicle outside your home, or are they in the home and likely to open fire on you?

Legaly you are allowed to stop a crime in progress, not with deadly force, but if in the process of stopping a crime in progress you are faced with the threat of the individual using lethal force against you then you can defend yourself.
However in such circumstances you will be held to a higher standard in a court of law than if you did not place yourself in that situation.
The court will make you out to have had the intent of using deadly force to stop the crime even if your intent was only to attempt to stop the crime with non deadly force and the criminal then posed a lethal threat. Punishing someone with bullets is not legal.
Stopping a crime in progress is legal, and if that escalates to defending your life from a lethal threat it is also legal, assuming you do not have a duty to retreat in your state.
In a state with a duty to retreat if you confront a criminal in the process of commiting a crime, and you are then forced to defend yourself because they attack you or pull a weapon, by placing yourself in the situation to begin with you can end up screwed in a court of law.
 
Read your State's laws, then consult a real lawyer. Most of the time Internet advice is worth less than you pay for it, especially legal advice.
 
All of what I mentioned is however only law.

As we see though people have still been winding up at trial even in Texas when legaly they were within the law.
Going to trial is always a gamble, it is expensive, and even in the right you can be found guilty. A jury is a random group of people, and even in very clear cases of self defense people have been sent to prison. A less than clear case of self defense has an even higher chance of that even if within the law.

Use of lethal force should always be a last resort, both for legal and financial as well as moral reasons.
Families and marriages have been broken after the stress of a lethal force incident. Someone shot and bleeding or dying in your home may cause everyone in the home to always recall that. For your wife or children or even yourself that may cause a person to never feel content in that room or that house again. Then you may have religious considerations.
That of course is better than you or a loved one being victimized, but whether it is better than losing a piece of property to someone not posing a threat is something you should heavily consider even where legal.

Lethal force can have many unforseen consequences, and your legal ability to use it does not mean it is the right choice, just that the state feels you deserve the right to have options.
 
If they are using a weapon of some sort to steal said property then it becomes a valid reason for you to respond. You have no means of knowing as to whether they won't shoot/stab/beat you before they leave.
 
There are a lot of differences between states. You are responsible for reading and understanding your own code and should do so. You are typically not allowed to shoot a fleeing thief, but as a practical matter during a home invasion it's impossible to determine the motives of the intruders and you have to reasonably assume they're not there to make you tea and quietly pilfer a few things.

I am beginning to really like texas...
Click to expand...

Texas has cruddy open carry laws, unfortunately. I don't know why the GOP dominated government didn't change them.
 
I am beginning to really like texas...
Click to expand...
Keep in mind in Texas you are also more likely to be executed or spend the rest of your life in prison or a very long sentence if every single thing does not go perfectly in court after the fact than in most other states.
Things going less than perfect in court in some states might leave you with a few year sentence if they jury sides with you on some things and not others, but in Texas the stakes are often much higher.

Texas has cruddy open carry laws, unfortunately. I don't know why the GOP dominated government didn't change them.
Click to expand...
One must wonder why in such a state something like open carry (and even concealed in Alaska and Vermont) which is legal without a license in many less extreme states is restricted in Texas. They went beyond what most states would allow with lethal force, yet are more restrictive on simply carrying.
They do allow anyone to carry whatever they want loaded in a vehicle with no permission or license though, including long arms as well as handguns.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

G
  • Locked
What are the laws on the use of deadly force to protect property (of others)in Texas?
Replies
6
Views
1K
Winchester 73
W
D
  • Locked
Deadly Force in Texas
Replies
11
Views
804
Bartholomew Roberts
B
230RN
  • Locked
Deadly force in protection of property --Colorado Constitution versus the "law."
Replies
21
Views
2K
Vern Humphrey
V
L
  • Locked
Lethal force to defend property?
2 3
Replies
60
Views
3K
JagerRanger
J
K
  • Locked
Deadly force for Animal abuse?
2
Replies
44
Views
2K
Art Eatman
A
Back
Top