wallysparx
Member
please do tell!Oh boy, this thread got me remembering a stolen car incident when I was LEO.
It was really, really funny.
please do tell!Oh boy, this thread got me remembering a stolen car incident when I was LEO.
It was really, really funny.
You do if you employ deadly force in the process.
As the ostensible "defender" was NOT in it at the time, nor were any members of his family, it is not a carjacking. Therefore, the car is just property. Offhand, the only state I can think of that lets a citizen employ deadly force to protect mere property is Texas (there may be a couple of others.
In short, the glib assertion above is an invitation to disaster.
c_yeager said:Right, except for the part where the person in question didnt actually use deadly force at any time. FYI pointing a gun at someone is pretty damn low on the force spectrum shooting on the other hand, is at the top.
§ 9.04. Threats as Justifiable Force
The threat of force is justified when the use of force is justified by this Chapter. For purposes of this section, a threat to cause death or serious bodily injury by the production of a weapon or otherwise, as long as the actor’s purpose is limited to creating an apprehension that he will use deadly force if necessary, does not constitute the use of deadly force.
I just spent thirty minutes composing a long response, but vB apparently disagreed with my definition of "logged in."