Sam1911
Moderator Emeritus
Yes, but probably only foolish for shooting himself. I doubt he understands the real mistakes he made.
Guy confronts car burglar, shoots himself
- Thread starter KingContraryMan
- Start date
- Status
Deltaboy1984
Member
Poor Training and Tatics.
Old krow
Member
Just to clarify a couple of things. here is another account of the story from a different local paper.
Here's what the MS Code says concerning justifiable homicide:
Here's the link to the whole code. It's a long page, I didn't want to post the whole thing.
I believe that this statement is correct, but there aren't enough details about the "confrontation" for me to ascertain a good picture.
Mississippi is a very gun friendly state. The question is, when is it "necessary" to prevent a car from being stolen? If it involves "forcible entry" you might have a case. The law here is more about protecting life than it is property. If the criminal puts my life in danger by trying to take property I may use lethal force. That's what I get out of it anyway, but I'm not an attorney.
I feel that this may be worth pointing out. Further down in the MS Code...
There's not enough info one way or the other except that the man was "visiting" the woman. It was her car. It was her apartment. If it was his first visit, would he be able to say for certain the guy that appeared to be breaking into the car wasn't the owner? If that was some chic that he met in a bar the night before, he might have just made a colossal mistake.
Here's what the MS Code says concerning justifiable homicide:
Here's the link to the whole code. It's a long page, I didn't want to post the whole thing.
I believe that this statement is correct, but there aren't enough details about the "confrontation" for me to ascertain a good picture.
Mississippi is a very gun friendly state. The question is, when is it "necessary" to prevent a car from being stolen? If it involves "forcible entry" you might have a case. The law here is more about protecting life than it is property. If the criminal puts my life in danger by trying to take property I may use lethal force. That's what I get out of it anyway, but I'm not an attorney.
I feel that this may be worth pointing out. Further down in the MS Code...
There's not enough info one way or the other except that the man was "visiting" the woman. It was her car. It was her apartment. If it was his first visit, would he be able to say for certain the guy that appeared to be breaking into the car wasn't the owner? If that was some chic that he met in a bar the night before, he might have just made a colossal mistake.
HOWARD J
Member
In MI if someone is breaking into your empty car or your garage to steal something or the car---it is best to call the cops--if you rush outside & confront the bad guy.
You may get shot----you are in hospital or dead.
You have a gun & shoot an armed or unarmed bad guy--if you survive you will most likely end up in prison.
You rush out with your favorite ballbat & harm the poor bad guy--you will probably end up in prison.
If you are in the car & a bad guy tries to break into car & he is armed you may shoot him.
If a bad guy is trying to break into your car & you are in the car--and he is not armed--you may not shoot him until he accesses the inside of the car.
In MI you may use deadly force to protect yourself on the street or in your house if you fear for your life-but- they don't want you to hurt someone protecting property like cars & lawnmowers. I have alarm systems on the house & garage---that keeps me out of trouble.
You may get shot----you are in hospital or dead.
You have a gun & shoot an armed or unarmed bad guy--if you survive you will most likely end up in prison.
You rush out with your favorite ballbat & harm the poor bad guy--you will probably end up in prison.
If you are in the car & a bad guy tries to break into car & he is armed you may shoot him.
If a bad guy is trying to break into your car & you are in the car--and he is not armed--you may not shoot him until he accesses the inside of the car.
In MI you may use deadly force to protect yourself on the street or in your house if you fear for your life-but- they don't want you to hurt someone protecting property like cars & lawnmowers. I have alarm systems on the house & garage---that keeps me out of trouble.
KingContraryMan
Member
Well I certainly have learned a few things. Thanks everyone for your input, and hello to Old Krow, nice to see another local here!
Old krow
Member
Just over the bridge.
Couple comments.
1. US law derives from English common law. The proper approach to a thief was to raise the Hue and Cry as you chased him. The Cry being something like "THIEF!! THIEF!!! To ARMS!!! THIEF!!" Note the TO ARMS part. That means "get your weapons and help me defend our town from this threat." The Hue part was that every thing that had a bell in town got rung...it was the 12th century tornado siren.
And, that applied for all crime. Justice was usually dispensed on the spot and often included hanging. This "can only use a gun to protect from lethal force" is a new, WRONG, concept that is not in English Common Law OR the US Constitution.
2. Yes, my life is worth more than my stuff. However, the life of the guy who is stealing it is not. Ideally, it is best to stop the criminal act and not kill him, but, if he doesn't cease all criminal activity when you draw on him, then what? I'm surely not fighting him man to man if I've got a gun and he doesn't....that's for the movies. Maybe a big dog.
But, you definitely have the right to threaten someone with a gun if they are stealing your stuff.
1. US law derives from English common law. The proper approach to a thief was to raise the Hue and Cry as you chased him. The Cry being something like "THIEF!! THIEF!!! To ARMS!!! THIEF!!" Note the TO ARMS part. That means "get your weapons and help me defend our town from this threat." The Hue part was that every thing that had a bell in town got rung...it was the 12th century tornado siren.
And, that applied for all crime. Justice was usually dispensed on the spot and often included hanging. This "can only use a gun to protect from lethal force" is a new, WRONG, concept that is not in English Common Law OR the US Constitution.
2. Yes, my life is worth more than my stuff. However, the life of the guy who is stealing it is not. Ideally, it is best to stop the criminal act and not kill him, but, if he doesn't cease all criminal activity when you draw on him, then what? I'm surely not fighting him man to man if I've got a gun and he doesn't....that's for the movies. Maybe a big dog.
But, you definitely have the right to threaten someone with a gun if they are stealing your stuff.
Subject to your local criminal code and ordinances, that would be the crime of Brandishing. While it might not get you arrested, it would many times be enough to have your CCW revoked.Kliegl said:
I could even see it evolve in the felony of Assault with a Deadly Weapon...depending on the circumstances.
It is always shaky ground, unless you local laws state otherwise, to display firearm when you are not justified in deploying deadly force
the laws of every state except one, and the laws of every US territory, did originate with the English Common Law.
The English Common Law did address deadly force, primarily involving edged weapons.
Deadly force was lawful to protect one from lethal force, provided that one had retreated "to the wall." Today, the duty to retreat has been eliminated in some states.
Deadly force was permitted to prevent a forcible felony a crime against a person, not a property crime. That is still true in most juridictions.
Deadly force was also permitted to defend one's "castle" or to prevent arson. That is true in many places, but in most, the arson must be against an occupied structure.
Deadly force was not permitted to stop a thief. That remains true today except in Texas under some circumstances.
Deadly force was permitted to prevent the escape of a felon (that did not include a thief). That is not true today except under very limited circumstances; nor it is necessary--in the early days an escaped felon was as good as gone.
Deadly force was permitted to prevent a forcible felony a crime against a person, not a property crime. That is still true in most juridictions.
Deadly force was also permitted to defend one's "castle" or to prevent arson. That is true in many places, but in most, the arson must be against an occupied structure.
Deadly force was not permitted to stop a thief. That remains true today except in Texas under some circumstances.
Deadly force was permitted to prevent the escape of a felon (that did not include a thief). That is not true today except under very limited circumstances; nor it is necessary--in the early days an escaped felon was as good as gone.
The US Constitution addresses the function of government, and it does not delve into the use of force by individuals.
It certainly was under the English Common Law.
In Texas, during the night time, yes, but nowhere else, and not under the English Common Law.
Lost Sheep
Member
I have a problem with a concept that says when I go out to ask a stranger to stop stealing my lawn mower, that I am ill-advised to clip my holstered pistol onto my belt. (Note the Boy Scouts' Motto: "Be Prepared"). Besides, what does that say about the advisability/legality of carrying (concealed of open) during normal day-to-day activities?
To take the question to the extreme, say I have just come home and gone into my house after being out (and legally armed with my open-carried handgun.) I notice a miscreant breaking into my toolshed. After dialing 911 should I (1) just watch him steal my tools, (2) go outside and confront him (if I consider it safely prudent to do so) or (3) disarm myself before going outside and confronting him?
I know that I am ill-advised legally to shoot him if he does not stop the stealing, but it he attacks me, I am foolish to not have the means to defend myself against such an attack hand BEFORE I go outside.
The timing of police response dictates that the property owner is the first line of (property) law enforcement, and the self is the first line of (life) law enforcement. Whether that is in a country that has chosen to disarm all its citizens of firearms is irrelevant.
Lost Sheep
P.S. This thread has moved a little afield of the "tactics" subject of the OP. I think I will click over to the Legal forum and start a thread to ask my question more pointedly over there after I form it a little better.
To take the question to the extreme, say I have just come home and gone into my house after being out (and legally armed with my open-carried handgun.) I notice a miscreant breaking into my toolshed. After dialing 911 should I (1) just watch him steal my tools, (2) go outside and confront him (if I consider it safely prudent to do so) or (3) disarm myself before going outside and confronting him?
I know that I am ill-advised legally to shoot him if he does not stop the stealing, but it he attacks me, I am foolish to not have the means to defend myself against such an attack hand BEFORE I go outside.
The timing of police response dictates that the property owner is the first line of (property) law enforcement, and the self is the first line of (life) law enforcement. Whether that is in a country that has chosen to disarm all its citizens of firearms is irrelevant.
Lost Sheep
P.S. This thread has moved a little afield of the "tactics" subject of the OP. I think I will click over to the Legal forum and start a thread to ask my question more pointedly over there after I form it a little better.
Kleanbore, think you got something off there. Thieves were often chased and caught by irregular militias, packing the weapons of the time. The local constable simply represented the King and would jail the guy until the local magistrate comes in.
Plus, we are starting to see "show your gun" laws come into play where you can demonstrate you have a weapon to dissuade someone from screwing with you further.
Plus, we are starting to see "show your gun" laws come into play where you can demonstrate you have a weapon to dissuade someone from screwing with you further.
If you got that from the multiple post in this thread, you've missed the point,...directly related to the OP's question...from the 2nd post forward.Lost Sheep said:
There is a huge difference between these laws and "the right to threaten someone with a gun"...the second is still a crime even when these laws exist (depending on the actual wording of the code section)Kliegl said:
Fred Fuller
Moderator Emeritus
P.S. This thread has moved a little afield of the "tactics" subject of the OP. I think I will click over to the Legal forum and start a thread to ask my question more pointedly over there after I form it a little better.
Looks as if it's gone too far afield to try and drag back on topic, unfortunately.
While there is always going to be a large legal component to much if not most of what we discuss here in ST&T, this still isn't Legal and it still is Strategies, Tactics and Training. Quoting large swatches of blackletter law doesn't add much if anything to the discussion, since there is so much more to legal matters in most jurisdictions than what the statute books say and since the statutes are limited to only one state at that.
Let us please leave off so much of the legal wrangling here in ST&T, and concentrate more on strategies, tactics and training. As has been said before, repeatedly, there is no substitute for personal familiarity with the law in the jurisdiction where you are, and for individually observing its strictures and limitations to the greatest extent possible. It's important to know what you can legally do in a given situation in your jurisdiction, and what you can't (so far as it's possible to 'know' anything where legal matters are concerned), but it's even more important to know what you should do and shouldn't do in those situations as far as tactics and strategy are concerned. We are not going to be able to settle the legal limits on defensive conduct in every jurisdiction out there in this forum, and attempting to do so will likely lead only to frustration while detracting from those things we should be accomplishing here.
Thanks,
lpl
Looks as if it's gone too far afield to try and drag back on topic, unfortunately.
While there is always going to be a large legal component to much if not most of what we discuss here in ST&T, this still isn't Legal and it still is Strategies, Tactics and Training. Quoting large swatches of blackletter law doesn't add much if anything to the discussion, since there is so much more to legal matters in most jurisdictions than what the statute books say and since the statutes are limited to only one state at that.
Let us please leave off so much of the legal wrangling here in ST&T, and concentrate more on strategies, tactics and training. As has been said before, repeatedly, there is no substitute for personal familiarity with the law in the jurisdiction where you are, and for individually observing its strictures and limitations to the greatest extent possible. It's important to know what you can legally do in a given situation in your jurisdiction, and what you can't (so far as it's possible to 'know' anything where legal matters are concerned), but it's even more important to know what you should do and shouldn't do in those situations as far as tactics and strategy are concerned. We are not going to be able to settle the legal limits on defensive conduct in every jurisdiction out there in this forum, and attempting to do so will likely lead only to frustration while detracting from those things we should be accomplishing here.
Thanks,
lpl
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
