Scenario - As you pull into your driveway, criminals flee from your house

[smalls]

There's a difference between someone robbing you at an ATM, and someone leaving your house with items.

At the ATM, YOU are there. They pose a threat to your life.

Leaving your house, they do not.

 

[hso]

There's no reason to do anything other than be the best witness possible by collecting all the information possible while talking to the 911 dispatcher.

 

[zxcvbob]

I take it you are referring to more of a "castle doctrine" example which I agree with you 100%. If someone breaks in while my family is inside and sleeping, then the bg has put my life, my families life, and his life in danger and I have every right to remove the threat of danger. Unfortunately that doesn't apply to the situation being discussed. This situation is you returning home and while pulling up to your house you see people leaving your property with stolen goods. Completely different.

In most states, yes. But in Texas, the thief has put his own life in danger whether anybody is home or not. Would I shoot somebody in the back who was running away with my TV set? No, I don't think I would, but depending on the totality of the circumstances I might be legally justified in doing so. So I object to the preachy tone of some of the messages in this thread.

 

[WNTFW]

I pull up and see people fleeing my home.

It would depend on if my wife & kids were with me or possibly inside. I would probably know where everyone is beforehand. I also have alarm & probably would not be going in blindly.

Going straight to shooting would not be my first course of action.
#1 Logically if my family is with me I should put some distance between us & them
#2 If my family is inside I should get to them & not shoot towards them. Now it seems that getting to them would be first priority. Notifying police or anyone else would probably be smart before proceeding. That way if I get taken out of the equation there is a possibility back up coming.
#3 There is always a possibility that the situation may not be as it appears.

All of the scenarios can have a thousand variables. It is also flavored by your personnel situation.

There are ways to stand up for yourself without pulling a gun. Being judge, jury and executioner may not be all it is cracked up to be.

I always think of the statement: "Positive outcomes reinforce bad tactics". Some of the way I handled things in the past may not have been ideal even if they worked out. At some point you can only do your best in the instant action is required.

 

[stumpers]

How does one argue the necessity of using deadly force against a thief when the property is covered by insurance?

I assume those who advocate killing another human over property also do not believe in using insurance to cover possible losses - just as it is a personal responsibility to protect oneself and property, I would think it is also one's own financial responsibility to cover their own property.

 

[Sam1911]

This is so simple at its core that I think we lose sight of the basic question:

"Did I have NO CHOICE but to shoot?"

I have no choice if I believe I'm about to die if I don't shoot. I have no choice if I believe a member of my family (or some other clear innocent) is about to die if I don't shoot.

Beyond that, this can remain a "good" gunfight -- i.e.: one that didn't happen!

No blood, no death, no mistakes, no collateral damage, no arrest, no trial, no jail, no doubts.

 

[smalls]

How does one argue the necessity of using deadly force against a thief when the property is covered by insurance?

Well, the case JustinJ and I cited, where the guy shot at someone stealing his work truck and it's contents, he would have been out money on the job site. He's not going to recoup that in enough time to pay rent, or get groceries next week. It was his way of livelihood.

At least, that's how it falls under Texas law, I think.

 

[ghoster]

I would simply pull in the driveway and the boys (dobies) would jump out of the back of the truck and go ask them what they think their doing.

Out where I live if your in someones yard with their stuff and their dogs rip you up a bit the police would gladly have a cup of coffee while they write up the report for you and wait for the squad to check them out .

where I live I have no duty to retreat and as long as my dogs are in their yard they can eat burglers pretty much with impunity.

Now if the perps pull guns and shoot it would be in my direction and thus my life is in immediate danger and I would respond with enough force to stop the threat.

In reality though, it is doubtfull the perps could get past the girls (mastiffs) that prefer to stay home as they can over eat and lay on the forbidden couch when dad's away

 

[Kleanbore]

Let's Be Careful!

Posted by ghoster: Now if the perps pull guns and shoot it would be in my direction and thus my life is in immediate danger and I would respond with enough force to stop the threat.

An assumption or two, here....

The defender will have to present at least some evidence supporting a reasonable belief that he was in imminent danger (or in one jurisdiction, that there had been no other way to recover tangible moveable property under some circumstances) and that deadly force had been immediately necessary.

The state may have evidence that puts that evidence in question. So might a plaintiff.

One very damaging evidentiary problem could be a public statement made prior to the event that might indicate a potential predisposition to the use of deadly force.

We have had a number of posts in this thread that would put the poster in a bad light, should the need to use deadly force ever arise.

 

[Kristensdaddy]

The joys of living in Georgia

True story. The wife of a college professor came home from deer hunting. Strange car in the driveway, personal belongings on the front porch and in the yard. She gets out of her car, pulls Browning BLR in .308 from the back seat and shoots up the burglars car. Flat tires, windows, engine. BG's flee out back door and are caught by police shortly thereafter.

End result, they lost no personal belongings, no injuries to her, BG's in jail. Police never even looked at her gun let alone give her any trouble.

Betty is a personal friend of mine. I have used said BLR to hunt with myself. This lady hunts more in one year than most of us do in 10.

Not that I would recommend doing this in other states, or maybe even other counties in GA but it was a very effective method of dealing with the situation.

 

[zxcvbob]

She was lucky, even in rural Georgia. Glad it had a happy ending

 

[Godsgunman]

Good story. AND no body was shot or injured and justice was served. A car got some new air conditioning though

 

[Deltaboy1984]

We don't play nice with criminals in TX so some of us would jump out and start shooting. I would call the police and keep driving , turn around and from a safe place take pictures with my cell phone camera and wait on the cops.

 

[JohnKSa]

However, to my knowledge there has been nobody in TX convicted for firing in defense of property. When i say a "a few" i mean there have only been a few cases when people shot in the defense of property. Not that a few of those who did were not convicted.

Convicted is a LONG way down the road and is a worst case scenario.

If you shoot someone outside your own home over property, the odds are you will be arrested and have to bail yourself out. Not cheap.

Then you go before a grand jury to see if they choose to indict. One would be well advised to retain counsel before that occurrence in a case involving a shooting, and that's not going to be free.

After being indicted comes the trial. More expense.

Even if NONE of that happens, you can figure on being sued in civil court and again, even if you win, it won't be cheap.

And, of course, you can go through the nightmare of a criminal prosecution and prevail and then still end up in civil court when you're done.

She gets out of her car, pulls Browning BLR in .308 from the back seat and shoots up the burglars car.

I'm goiing to stop short of recommending such a course of action, but I will say that in my opinion, it's less likely to result in expensive legal complications than shooting up the burglars.

 

[leadcounsel]

Yep, stuff worth stealing can be replaced, probably by insurance (minus a deductible).

Any real financial loss would appear to be a hill of beans compared to hiring a lawyer for even a few hours to attempt to defend you or talk to the prosecutor...

Spend a few hours in cuffs under the heat lamp and hot seat and you'd change your idea about shooting someone over a TV or CD collection...

As a defense attorney, I represent folks that made poor decisions over petty issues... and regret it deeply...

A decent criminal defense lawyer will charge $20,000 for a felony charge, and twice that for a homicide.

Oh, and I'd recommend the Armed Citizen Legal Defense Network; they'll cover the first $10,000 legal retainer for a self defense shoot and react quickly to get you counsel - the first day is arguably the most important.

 

[Crusader103]

I know that the OP didn't specifically state this, but he didn't exclude it either. Facing this scenario, if I come home to find people fleeing the house my response will be dictated by a single fact; whether or not my wife and kids are there.

Unfortunately, my wife and kids are not always with me. Sometimes they are home when I arrive. If they are home, or I expect for them to be home, you can bet that my response will be much different than "observe and report." It is unlikely that perps made it past my wife (she's been to many of my classes) but I cannot count on that fact alone.

This would be one of those few scenarios in which I advocate entering a building or dwelling without assistance or awaiting the arrival of police. I simply could not afford to. I would accept the risk, weapon drawn, and find my family. Anybody that came between me and them during my search would be fair game.

It is for this very reason, and instances like it, that I do advocate one know how to not only conduct a search alone, but undergo training that does not ignore the possibility of having to advance on or through a threat. CQB skills, even solo CQB skills, are very important. I am not an advocate of conducting a search alone or rushing through a dwelling/day care center/etc by myself, especially against potentially armed assailants. But when family is involved, dynamics change and the amount of personal risk that we are willing to accept should change as well.

If I know the home to be unoccupied, at least by my loved ones, I'll observe and report. Even working patrol as a police officer, I would always wait it out for another officer to arrive before searching a building or dwelling. It's just the prudent thing to do. But once again, when lives are at stake, especially loved ones, dynamics can change and you may be forced to rely on your own overwhelming violence of action to overcome the threat that lies within.

 

[ghoster]

Kleanbore wrote:
[The defender will have to present at least some evidence supporting a reasonable belief that he was in imminent danger ]

gunshot residue, spent casings, possible slug recovery, position of offender and wound evidence would all indicate offender; chose to stop fleeing turn around and fire in the direction of the defendent.

someone that stoped, turned and started firing in my direction (I just pulled in) I would consider to be a immediate threat to my life.

[The state may have evidence that puts that evidence in question. So might a plaintiff]

I would rely on the actual factual evidence as if it was not a real threat, it would not have happened and even creative proscution would have a hard time twisting the stated senero's evidence.

[One very damaging evidentiary problem could be a public statement made prior to the event that might indicate a potential predisposition to the use of deadly force]

The simple fact of obtaining a ccw is a clear statement that the holder is willing to use deadly force to protect themself from a deadly threat and understands what the laws pertaining to that force requires.

 

[BADUNAME37]

I would be on the cell with 911. I would most likely stay in my vehicle, if they had a vehicle, I would try to block it so they cannot leave in their vehicle. I would not enter the house, let the police come and shoot tear gas through my windows.

 

[Kleanbore]

Ghoster, you have missed the points completely.

You have your testimony; there is their testimony; there may be witness testimony, which would likely document some of your actions but perhaps not enough of theirs to justify your use of deadly force.

Evidence would likely prove that each party had fired in the direction of the other. The issue would be whether there is evidence supporting justification-- a reasonable belief that you had been in imminent danger and faced with an immediate necessity based upon what you knew at the time.

What may have appeared to constitute the conclusion of a burglary may turn out to have been something else, and if it does not, there is the question of what the resident knew at the time.

What one might consider to constitute an immediate threat to his life and what the evidence might support in terms of which party reasonably believed what can turn out to be two different things.

Courts have held that when a property owner confronts a trespasser who fires at the property owner, the trespasser may well be entitled to a jury instruction of self defense.

A prior public statement that one would confront trespassers while armed could prove very damaging, should things not work out well. Nor would comments about turning loose dangerous dogs serve the defendant well, either on the criminal side or on the civil, should someone be injured.

Read leadcounsel's post #65 and consider the risks. Than add in the risk of being shot in the back by an unseen accomplice.

 

[GEM]

The simple fact of obtaining a ccw is a clear statement that the holder is willing to use deadly force to protect themself from a deadly threat and understands what the laws pertaining to that force requires.

In TX, you do get instructions on that. What about states where there is no such requirement for concealed carry? I doubt you can be sure that someone who carries is a paragon of legal knowledge. If you talk to instructors, they get a small but real subset of potential carriers who just want to know how they can shoot someone.

 

[Sky]

This is so simple at its core that I think we lose sight of the basic question:

"Did I have NO CHOICE but to shoot?"

I have no choice if I believe I'm about to die if I don't shoot. I have no choice if I believe a member of my family (or some other clear innocent) is about to die if I don't shoot.

Beyond that, this can remain a "good" gunfight -- i.e.: one that didn't happen!

No blood, no death, no mistakes, no collateral damage, no arrest, no trial, no jail, no doubts.

Sam pretty well nailed it for those who can think further than the end of their barrel. There is always a possibility that there might be circumstances totally beyond our control; where a snap judgement may end up with you being a hero or a dirt bag. Well formed educated decision is always the best course, no? What is right and what is legal should be the same but sometimes it takes allot of time and money to make it all work out in the end.

 

[TAKtical]

I would stay in my vehicle with my pistol on my lap and call the police. Let them clear the house. I wouldnt do anything else unless I saw them running out with my safe. Property is not worth shooting someone but im not gonna let them take my weapons to use in other crimes. My safe weighs 400lbs and is bolted to the basement floor but Idk if yours is.

 

[JustinJ]

If you shoot someone outside your own home over property, the odds are you will be arrested and have to bail yourself out. Not cheap.

If you shoot somebody in any scenario there is some chance you will be arrested but given TX law and the way these events have played out i don't believe it is probable one will be arrested.

Again, i'm not advocating one shoot in defense of property but I don't agree with that assessment of probability of arrest in TX.

Even if NONE of that happens, you can figure on being sued in civil court and again, even if you win, it won't be cheap.

You can count on it? Possible, sure. Sure thing? Seems unlikely. The shot thief is not likely to be of means to afford an attorney and most lawyers don't like to sue when there is little to get. I suppose if the shooter is extremely wealthy it may be different odds.

Of course, there are costs involved with shooting somebody far beyond financial and criminal.

 

[JohnKSa]

If you shoot somebody in any scenario there is some chance you will be arrested but given TX law and the way these events have played out i don't believe it is probable one will be arrested.

If castle doctrine comes into play, you probably won't be arrested. If you shoot someone in a situation where you are not covered by castle doctrine, then you will almost certainly be arrested. Defense of property outside the home is NOT a castle doctrine situation.

Remember, it's a crime to shoot people. If you're not covered by the presumption of innocence (as in a castle doctrine scenario) then if you admit to shooting someone (or the circumstances make it obvious that you did so) you will have to prove why you were justified in doing something that is normally considered a serious crime. First step in the process is being arrested.

Seems unlikely. The shot thief is not likely to be of means to afford an attorney and most lawyers don't like to sue when there is little to get.

Unless you don't have homeowner's insurance, there's plenty to get. Attorneys are quite often more than willing to take on a case with a chance of a big return, even if their client can't pay them anything up front.

 

[GLOOB]

I'll say it again--all of my stuff is insured, and none of my stuff is worth shooting someone.

Even so, I'd be glad for Texas law to apply everywhere. Just because you can, doesn't mean YOU have to. Your stuff will be safer just because there are other people who ARE willing. And insurance can't replace everything.