Lethal force to defend property?

[leadcounsel]

This is not your usual legal force to defend property question. I have a twist that has often given me pause... and one that I think could possibly be a good defense for anyone who would be accused of using lethal force in defense of property. Please weigh in.

As a private citizen, it is commonly accepted that I cannot use lethal force to prevent a thief from stealing my $1,000, $5,000, 10,000, 20,000 or $50,000 vehicle. I'm typically not entitled to shoot someone in my house for stealing anything, unless I also think they are going to commit a violent crime like attacking someone.

However, when banks move money in armored cars, they have armed guards with handguns and or longguns. What are their instructions to protect the banks property? Can they shoot an unarmed person who just tries to take the bags of money?

What about other businesses or state institutions that have armed guards? The US mint? Liquor stores? Military installations?

In the past, and even now in some places like CA, I believe that it was/is commonly difficult to get a concealed carry permit unless you were in a business that dealt with cash, diamonds, or precious metals and had a lot of valuables. Clearly it was/is justifiable not because of a person, but because of property.

What elevates THEIR property rights over mine, as a normal citizen? I realize the obvious, which is the high value of the property and the increased liklihood and risk that nefarious folks will try to rob banks and diamond dealers - and they'll do it using guns or other weapons.

However, this all ties back in to property rights and lethal force. If I see a person trying to steal my car, I have no right to shoot him. If, however, a person steals from an armored car, does the guard have the authority to shoot the thief...?

 

[ljnowell]

Let me preface my statements with this: I DO NOT BELIEVE ANYONES LIFE OR PROPERTY IS MORE VALUABLE THAN ANOTHERS. NO matter how much more stuff you may have than me, its equally devestating to both of us to lose all our stuff.

Now, that being said, I would imagine that the probability of it turning violent goes up when the money value does. People are willing to go a lot further for 100k than for 100 dollars. Though, it stands to mention that a guy I know got killed for 80 dollars one time.

 

[hermannr]

Here in WA you can use whatever force is necessary to protect yourself, and your property...if you are with/in it. That is, a car jacking...lethal force is OK, unoccupied, That might be questioned. Home invasion, presumed justified, residential burglary, (no-one is at home) it might be questioned. Robbery on the street, whatever force to resist that is necessary is generally considered justified.

I think, if you carry that out to your armored car or jewler...there is always some person involved (as in a car jacking)...as the driver never leaves the vehicle. As to the people carrying valuables, again there is a person involved, the person does not leave the valuables unattended. NO?

In WA this is more supported by court decisions than written law.

 

[Kleanbore]

Robbery on the street, whatever force to resist that is necessary is generally considered justified.

robbery is not considered a property crime, and the fact that the use of deadly force to defend against robbery is justified when it tis immediately necessary has nothing to do with the defense of property.

 

[BSA1]

There isn't any practical difference.

As a general rule private security guards operate under the same laws as private citizens. This can vary from state to state and by occupation.

Some states have laws on the books that allows use of lethal force to prevent a carjacking. This has been in response to the violence that accomplied the act or it is bad for the tourist industry.

On the other hand a prison guard usually has the legal authority to shoot a unarmed felon attempting to escape from prison whereas the citizen does not.

The legal definifation of most robberies requires the use of or threat of force. For example showing a gun or holding your hand in your pocket and telling the victim to give me your money or I'll shoot.

The contents of a armored car are insured. Content of most homes by law are required to be insured (if you have a mortgage).

I know a lot of prison and armored car guards and leo's that will not use deadly force due to the risk of legal and civil problems for years to come.

 

[mljdeckard]

Kleanbore is correct. Robbery is a crime against a person. It means you are forcing someone to give you something against their will. It is different than theft, fraud, larceny, or burglary. The word 'robbery' implies the threat of force.

 

[Zoogster]

Well I understand your implications, clearly it is the property that elevates to the need of increased force available.

However if you look at it just from a legal standpoint then it will almost always be a robbery for armed guards. In California for example robbery is defined as using force or even the threat of force to take something or attempting to do so.
So armed or not, if there is any resistance to the taking of the item, and the taker attempts to overcome that resistance, they are committing robbery.

For example if an unarmed person commits petty theft in a store, they have committed petty theft, a misdemeanor.
If the store owner attempts to stop them and they push, punch, or otherwise use force to escape then they committed robbery.

For example a teenager in high school took some beer from a liquor store and ran out of the store with it. The clerk ran down the street after them and grabbed them and the teenager punched them. That force used to escape elevates the crime to a felony robbery. Even though they intended to use no force initially and even though the clerk ran down the street after them. The punch did no severe damage, and would otherwise have just been a misdemeanor battery. However used in conjunction with the taking of an object made it a felony robbery.
Even though the theft was a misdemeanor petty theft and the punch was a misdemeanor battery on their own, together they form a violent felony robbery.




So by conclusion the same thing would happen if someone was stealing your car. If you witness someone outside attempting to take your car or even contents in your car, and you ran out and attempted to stop them, and they use and force, even unarmed force in order to successfully take that object, they are no longer stealing but robbing you of that item. It does not matter if they had no intention of committing robbery but only a property crime, or even a misdemeanor crime, as soon as force is used on their behalf in the taking of an item it is robbery.
Robbery is a violent felony.
Likewise an armed guard attempting to stop even an unarmed criminal trying to run away with their bag of money in an armored car delivery would be being robbed as soon as they had forced used against them, even unarmed force. Even if the bag was sitting by itself and there was no force involved until the guard grabbed or tried to stop the thief.
While if it was taken from the guard it would automatically be a robbery, even if taken from the ground it becomes a robbery if the guard grabs them and they use violence to get away.


However that is the law, then you have reality and how the law is actually applied.
Numerous people have been tried and convicted for going out and shooting a car thief. This is because the person is viewed as having gone out to shoot someone, punishing a property crime with violence.
So for example say you see a criminal breaking into your car on your property. You go out and because of the presumed danger you take a gun with you.
At that point everything you have done may be legal.
You then attempt to dissuade or stop the criminal from taking the valuable item. In California you have every legal right to both stop or even perform a citizen's arrest (often advised against due to liability) if you want.
Once again technically legal. Now lets say they turn and attack you, or with crowbar in hand come towards you in a manner that makes you feel threatened.
You have every legal right to have done everything up to that point. Now if you have a real fear of serious injury or death you also have every legal right to defend yourself with lethal force.
So technically legal.

However here is where technically legal and perception of what was done take a different path.
If you did all of those things and were forced to shoot, the prosecutor and many others involved will make the case that you went out and shot them as punishment for the property crime. That act would be illegal.
You have no legal right to shoot someone committing property crime. Your claim of self defense will be made out to be an attempt to get away with being judge, jury, and executioner, of someone trying to steal something of yours.
So the prosecutor will claim your motivation for shooting was to punish, and not in self defense, and it becomes a case all about what the motivation actually was at the time of the shooting.
Compounding the problem jurors may be swayed by the fact that had you not gone out there at all, the entire problem would have been avoided, even though you had every legal right to both go out there or even arrest the person. That you both chose to go out and have a confrontation, and brought a gun to do it, may cause some to see fault with you even if the act was entirely legal.
That is not so much the law, but the human element. The human element that can find you guilty even if you followed the law, based on their interpretation and perspective. It will influence their perspective on whether you really did have to defend yourself, or whether that is just something you are claiming. Whether you are found guilty all depends on what they believe even if you followed the law entirely, and there is a very high probability they will find you guilty.

 

[brboyer]

In Florida, one is justified in using deadly force to prevent a forcible felony.

“Forcible felony” means treason; murder; manslaughter; sexual battery; carjacking; home-invasion robbery; robbery; burglary; arson; kidnapping; aggravated assault; aggravated battery; aggravated stalking; aircraft piracy; unlawful throwing, placing, or discharging of a destructive device or bomb; and any other felony which involves the use or threat of physical force or violence against any individual.

I'm typically not entitled to shoot someone in my house for stealing anything, unless I also think they are going to commit a violent crime like attacking someone.

In Florida, when someone enters your home unlawfully, the law presumes that you are in fear of great bodily harm or death and are therefore justified in using deadly force.

 

[mljdeckard]

I can certainly agree that if a person is visibly armed, and they are confronted with a demand of a felony, it follows that the threat of force is implied.

 

[Sam1911]

However, when banks move money in armored cars, they have armed guards with handguns and or longguns. What are their instructions to protect the banks property? Can they shoot an unarmed person who just tries to take the bags of money?

It has always been my understanding that (in most states/locations at least) the guards were there to protect the money and bear witness of any attempts to steal it, and they were armed to protect themselves because people who try to steal valuables known to be guarded tend to be willing to injure or kill those guards while trying to do so.

So it isn't really a matter of putting the bank's property rights above yours. You have (in most places I've ever heard of) the right to be armed on your property, and if someone attacks YOU in an attempt to get your stuff you have the right to defend yourself.

 

[Owen Sparks]

If someone were trying to steal your property and you physically intervened by trying to take it back, the thief could very likely escalate things to a deadly force situation by violently resisting. Once that happened it would no longer be about property would it?

 

[Zoogster]

You have the authority to stop someone from taking your stuff. In many states you have the legal ability to arrest them. You have the right to defend yourself with the force that is necessary if they decide they don't like that and want to attack you.

You don't have the right to use lethal force against them for the property crime.
So if lethal force was used in self defense a prosecutor will typically make the argument that it was used to punish and not in self defense.
That argument is persuasive to many jurors, as there is certainly plenty of people that do go use excessive force to punish someone stealing from them.

In fact jurys tend to find more people guilty in that situation than not guilty.

So as you can see it becomes not about what is technically legal, but what people believe was done. People that feel you have an obvious motivation to lie about things to avoid prison, and so are less apt to rely on your testimony.
They got a prosecutor telling them in various ways that you got pissed off and went out and shot someone for stealing your stuff.
They know nobody would have been shot if you didn't choose to go out there and confront them.

 

[Sam1911]

Sure! And there is, perhaps, a bit of a disconnect between what is tactically sound and what is legally defensible.

From a tactical standpoint, it would be best to use whatever means necessary to prevent the theft, from a distance and before the thief has the chance to cause you any physical harm.

However, in most cases, you don't have any legally justified standing to threaten, injure, or kill him to keep him from stealing. The only reason you can give for pulling a trigger (and usually even for pulling a GUN) is that you did (or a reasonable person in your place would) believe that he had the ability and opportunity to put you in jeopardy. (Or, said more conventionally, he had "means, motive, and opportunity" to kill you.)

So, from a tactical standpoint you may say that if you observed someone attempting to steal your television, the safest bet is to fire from cover before he's aware you're even there. Using lethal force to protect property. But that's manslaughter, at least, and probably murder.

From a legal standpoint, you have the right to use various means to attempt to stop him from stealing from you (from speaking to him, to attempting to take back the item, and in some jurisdictions you may even use various levels of "force," though not deadly force), but may not use deadly force unless you HAVE to because he attacks YOU.

The robbery aspect comes into play when there is a (possibly implied, or maybe even inferred) threat of violence attendant to the theft.

 

[9mmepiphany]

In the past, and even now in some places like CA, I believe that it was/is commonly difficult to get a concealed carry permit unless you were in a business that dealt with cash, diamonds, or precious metals and had a lot of valuables. Clearly it was/is justifiable not because of a person, but because of property.

What elevates THEIR property rights over mine, as a normal citizen? I realize the obvious, which is the high value of the property and the increased liklihood and risk that nefarious folks will try to rob banks and diamond dealers - and they'll do it using guns or other weapons.

However, this all ties back in to property rights and lethal force. If I see a person trying to steal my car, I have no right to shoot him. If, however, a person steals from an armored car, does the guard have the authority to shoot the thief...?

Their property rights are not elevated. You are confusing Property Crimes and Crimes Against Persons.

Robbery has never been a property crime. There has to be someone present for the force or fear, which defines a Robbery, to be used against...which makes it a crime against a person. That is why your home can never be robbed, it can only be burgled

 

[Salmoneye]

Vermont law covers both Robbery, and Burglary:

§ 2305. Justifiable homicide

If a person kills or wounds another under any of the circumstances enumerated below, he or she shall be guiltless:

(1) In the just and necessary defense of his or her own life or the life of his or her husband, wife, parent, child, brother, sister, master, mistress, servant, guardian or ward; or

(2) In the suppression of a person attempting to commit murder, sexual assault, aggravated sexual assault, burglary or robbery, with force or violence; or

(3) In the case of a civil officer; or a military officer or private soldier when lawfully called out to suppress riot or rebellion, or to prevent or suppress invasion, or to assist in serving legal process, in suppressing opposition against him or her in the just and necessary discharge of his or her duty. (Amended 1983, No. 23, § 2.)

http://www.leg.state.vt.us/statutes/fullchapter.cfm?Title=13&Chapter=053

 

[Sam1911]

Vermont law covers both Robbery, and Burglary:

...

"(2) In the suppression of a person attempting to commit murder, sexual assault, aggravated sexual assault, burglary or robbery, with force or violence;"

Yes, but it restricts that by adding "with force or violence." I've kind of habitually defined robbery as "burglary with force or violence" (roughly speaking) so I'm not sure what, if any, distinction VT is drawing there.

 

[Quiet]

In regards to CA...

In the past, and even now in some places like CA, I believe that it was/is commonly difficult to get a concealed carry permit unless you were in a business that dealt with cash, diamonds, or precious metals and had a lot of valuables. Clearly it was/is justifiable not because of a person, but because of property.

The carrying of large sums of money/valuables due to employment/business is used as a "good cause" for the issuance of a CA LTC permit, because the issuing agency determined that a person who does that has a higher percentage chance of being robbed/assault, than a person who does not carry large sums of money/valuables.


CA law [PC 197] does allow for the "defense of property".
But, "defense of property" is only justifiable in order to prevent an assailant from entering/damaging that property (residence/vehicle) to do harm to those within.
So...
... Legal to shoot/kill a suspect breaking into your home/car, while you/someone else is within and legal to shoot/kill a suspect attempting to set fire to your home/car, while you/someone else is within.
... Not legal to shoot/kill a suspect breaking into your home/car, when there is no one within the home/car and not legal to shoot/kill a suspect attempting to set fire to your home/car, when there is no one within the home/car.

CA law [PC 198.5] also allows the use of deadly force against any unknown intruder that has broken into the residence/temporary residence of the defender, because it is presumed that the intruder (who can be unarmed) is there to do the inhabitants harm.
So...
... Legal to shoot/kill a suspect (armed or unarmed, does not matter) that has broken into your home.
... Not legal to shoot/kill a suspect fleeing from your home.

CA law [PC 197] also allows the use of deadly force to lawfully suppress a riot and to keep the peace.
So...
... Legal to shoot/kill suspects, that appear to be looters/rioters approaching your business/home, during a state of emergency.
... Not legal to shoot/kill suspects approaching your business/home because you felt they may rob the business/home.



CA Penal Code 197
Homicide is also justifiable when committed by any person in any of the following cases:
1. When resisting any attempt to murder any person, or to commit a felony, or to do some great bodily injury upon any person; or,
2. When committed in defense of habitation, property, or person, against one who manifestly intends or endeavors, by violence or surprise, to commit a felony, or against one who manifestly intends and endeavors, in a violent, riotous or tumultuous manner, to enter the habitation of another for the purpose of offering violence to any person therein; or,
3. When committed in the lawful defense of such person, or of a wife or husband, parent, child, master, mistress, or servant of such person, when there is reasonable ground to apprehend a design to commit a felony or to do some great bodily injury, and imminent danger of such design being accomplished; but such person, or the person in whose behalf the defense was made, if he was the assailant or engaged in mutual combat, must really and in good faith have endeavored to decline any further struggle before the homicide was committed; or,
4. When necessarily committed in attempting, by lawful ways and means, to apprehend any person for any felony committed, or in lawfully suppressing any riot, or in lawfully keeping and preserving the peace.

Penal Code 198.5
Any person using force intended or likely to cause death or great bodily injury within his or her residence shall be presumed to have held a reasonable fear of imminent peril of death or great bodily injury to self, family, or a member of the household when that force is used against another person, not a member of the family or household, who unlawfully and forcibly enters or has unlawfully and forcibly entered the residence and the person using the force knew or had reason to believe that an unlawful and forcible entry occurred.
As used in this section, great bodily injury means a significant or substantial physical injury.

 

[HOWARD J]

Here in MI--you may use lethal force if someone breaks into your home-- if you are being car-jacked------if you are in any place that it is legal for you to be & you feel that your life is threatened.

You may NOT use lethal force to stop someone from stealing your car if you are not in your car.
Most cars here in S/E MI are stolen by kids under 18---it is best not to damage one of these animals ---if you do you will have the full force of the law come down on YOU. They are protected & will be back on the street the same day while you rot in jail.

 

[Frank Ettin]

Vermont law covers both Robbery, and Burglary:

...

"(2) In the suppression of a person attempting to commit murder, sexual assault, aggravated sexual assault, burglary or robbery, with force or violence;"

s, but it restricts that by adding "with force or violence." I've kind of habitually defined robbery as "burglary with force or violence" (roughly speaking) so I'm not sure what, if any, distinction VT is drawing there.

Some definitions might help:

• Robbery is essential the taking of the property of another by violence or the threat of violence.
  
  
• Burglary is essentially the breaking and entering of a building with the intent of committing a felony therein.
  
  
• The felony most often intended by a burglar is larceny, i. e., the taking and carrying away of the property of another with the intent to permanently deprive him thereof.

Of course, those are only rough definitions, and different States may use different and more detailed definitions. But they will generally track with the foregoing -- which are based on the Common Law definitions of the respective crimes. The rough definitions are useful for highlighting the fundament differences between robbery and burglary.

A burglary could be forceful or violent, i.e., breaking down a door and charging in to steal, or stealthy, i. e., picking a lock in the dead of night and quietly making off with the silver. I suspect that court decisions in Vermont have clarified the application of the statute, but I tend to doubt that the courts have read it in a way to find the use of lethal force in a stealthy burglary to be justified under it.

 

[MedWheeler]

This is why pizza delivery drivers (not known for carrying scads of cash) that shoot would-be robbers so frequently are cleared in the shootings, despite the local media's often touted cliche of "he killed that boy over 20 bucks and a pizza!" No, he didn't shoot the robber over money or pizza; he shot the robber because he believed the robber was willing and able to cause him serious injury or death over money or pizza.

 

[9mmepiphany]

No, he didn't shoot the robber over money or pizza; he shot the robber because he believed the robber was willing and able to cause him serious injury or death over money or pizza.

That is in essence the difference that separates property crimes and crimes against persons.

If the delivery guy is at the door delivering the pizza and a thief is stealing other pizzas from his vehicle, you can't use deadly force to stop the theft

 

[rcmodel]

Basically, they can steal my $40,000 truck out of the driveway, and there is nothing I can do about it.

But if they try to steal the $4 bucks of car wash quarters out of the ash tray while I am setting in the $40,000 truck, the game is on!

rc

 

[bikerdoc]

Great quote from my boss at the ammo wharehouse.

"You are nor armed to protect my stuff, you are armed to protect yourself from people who want to hurt you to take my stuff"

 

[Jim K]

Hmmm. If "leadcounsel" really is a lead counsel, he should be able to answer his own questions as well as enlighten the rest of us.

Jim

 

[scottgun]

I think of this as "where America went wrong", where the lawyers and courts have given criminals more rights than the property owners. The saying goes that a human life is worth more than property. I believe that a thief's life is worthless and deserves to be shot. It would defnitely cut down on stealing. Didn't it use to be legal to shoot a man stealing your horse? Well now that the means of transportation is cars rather than a horse, what is the difference? I work hard to buy the items that I have, so to replace those items requires more time from my life. A thief stealing those items itsn't taking just my property they are taking part of my life that it took to acquire the item they are stealing.

And in general, state laws vary, but you are entitled to use physical force to protect your propety. So I see a thief running out of my yard with the TV, I could be legally justified to chase they down and physically retreive it. But not being the young, fighting type, I wouldn't be physically capable of overtaking a thief to reteive my property. I could (and would) hose him down with a can of pepper spray. But then if it escalated to a deadly force situation, then I would react with deadly force, pulling my gun. A DA would see this as me escallating the situation by going out with pepper spray and a gun. And most likely I would be chraged with murder. Legally, we are restricted to watching someone taking our property and calling the police, who are too busy pulling over speeders and issuing tickets.

So I agree with the OP's premise that there is a dicotomy in the average person protecting their property versus an armed guard protecting the property of a corporation. This is my opinion on current laws and not a justification for use of force.