Quantcast
  1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Taking out residential firebombers?

Discussion in 'Legal' started by Guy B. Meredith, Jan 18, 2006.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Guy B. Meredith

    Guy B. Meredith Member

    Joined:
    Dec 25, 2002
    Messages:
    2,315
    Location:
    Salem, Oregon
    I could ask the California DOJ for the correct answer, but for some reason I am reluctant.

    There was a news report that I am now unable to search out about two or three individuals tossing molotov cocktails at the residence of a citizen who had been reporting drug use in the neighborhood. The house was damaged, but I did not see the entire report and cannot find a follow up so don't know how extensive the damage was.

    In any event the question is whether commiting homicide in stopping these type of individuals from attacking your home is justifiable.
     
    Last edited: Jan 19, 2006
  2. neoncowboy

    neoncowboy Member

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2004
    Messages:
    636
    Location:
    land of cotton
    I dunno about CA...but in Georgia we're authorized to use any force up to & including deadly force to prevent the commission of a forcible felony or to prevent grave bodily harm to ourselves or others.

    Lobbing molotov cocktails at a house certainly looks to me like a forcible felony with the potential for grave bodily harm.

    bang.
     
  3. WT

    WT Member

    Joined:
    Jun 11, 2003
    Messages:
    1,985
    In my state ......

    If the house is occupied, yes.

    If no one is at home, no.
     
  4. AJ Dual

    AJ Dual member

    Joined:
    Feb 20, 2003
    Messages:
    2,095
    Location:
    Wisconsin
    If you're a crack shot.

    You could just shoot the bottle. (After the rag has been lit) :D

    You wouldn't be shooting at the person at all.

    Any "spectacular results" would be a bonus.
     
  5. Guy B. Meredith

    Guy B. Meredith Member

    Joined:
    Dec 25, 2002
    Messages:
    2,315
    Location:
    Salem, Oregon
    AJ Dual

    I could definitely go for that. Instant karma.
     
  6. Biker

    Biker Member

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2005
    Messages:
    6,105
    Location:
    Idaho
    In my state, likely yes.
    Biker
     
  7. taliv

    taliv Moderator

    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2004
    Messages:
    22,368
    isn't "homicide" always a crime and therefore never justifiable? if you shoot some knucklehead who's attacking you and they die, that's not "homicide" or "murder"
     
  8. Hypnogator

    Hypnogator Member

    Joined:
    Dec 29, 2002
    Messages:
    1,811
    Location:
    AZ, WA
    No. Homicide is the killing of one human being by another. It may be justifiable, excusable, accidental, or criminal (manslaughter, murder).

    Trust me. I'm a retired criminal investigator.:D
     
  9. taliv

    taliv Moderator

    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2004
    Messages:
    22,368
    yep, you're right. i stand corrected.
     
  10. boofus

    boofus Guest

    In Texas catching an arsonist in the act as exactly the same as catching a serial killer or rapist in the act. Arson, murder, rape, kidnapping are specifically listed crimes where deadly force can be legally used even if the shooter is not directly threatened. Open season.

    Those enviro-terrorist arsonist whackos won't be burning SUV dealerships in TX any time soon, because the dealers can legally shoot them dead even if they only threaten his property.

    But since you are in california odds are you will need to be set on fire and have 3rd degree burns over 89.96% of your body before you can legally take the trigger lock off your gun.
     
  11. Flyboy

    Flyboy Member

    Joined:
    Apr 19, 2004
    Messages:
    1,888
    Location:
    Oklahoma City, OK
    Here's one for the tilecrawlers among us: if arson isn't enough in and of itself to justify the use of force, is the fact of a drought relevent? Right now, all of Oklahoma is under a burn ban, and has been for a month or so. Hundreds have lost their homes, and two have died, as a result of wildfires.

    If I were to see somebody lighting a Molotov (or otherwise attempting to start a fire) under those conditions, would it be different than somebody in, say, western Washington (quit stealing our rain, pax!) starting one?
     
  12. beerslurpy

    beerslurpy member

    Joined:
    Nov 8, 2004
    Messages:
    4,438
    Location:
    Spring Hill, Florida
    Gasoline bombs are deadly weapons and being trapped in a burning house is definitely the kind of assault that could lead to grievous bodily harm or death. If you beleive that someone is inside the house, you can blast the cocktail thrower. Preferably in such a way that he drops the cocktail at his feet and engulfs himself in flames.
     
  13. geekWithA.45

    geekWithA.45 Moderator Emeritus

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2003
    Messages:
    9,056
    Location:
    SouthEast PA
    A lot of jurisdictions explicitly state that lethal force may be used to stop an arsonist.

    In others, the doctrine of stopping an imminent threat to life or limb might cover you.

    {muses} I wonder how the imminent threat doctrine works with critical supplies, such as food, water, and air? For example, burning the barn full of food or a grain silo without humans in it might not be deemed an imminent threat, unless in a SHTF/TEOTWAWKI scenario. Flipside, I'll imagine there's some jurisprudence from our agrarian past that addresses that issue. Any legal eagles with commentary on that?
     
  14. gezzer

    gezzer Member

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2004
    Messages:
    2,052
    Location:
    NH
    To stop an Arson is justifiable due to the inherent danger to the firefighters.
     
  15. Manedwolf

    Manedwolf member

    Joined:
    Nov 10, 2005
    Messages:
    3,693
    Location:
    New Hampshire
    I would think any sane court would consider a bottle of flammable liquid with a burning rag stuck in it, about to be thrown at an occupied residence...to be a deadly weapon.

    But there's a lot of insane courts.
     
  16. Delmar

    Delmar Member

    Joined:
    Dec 26, 2002
    Messages:
    2,059
    Location:
    Cedar Bluff, VA
    Yep-shoot the bottle. Nickname him zippo. He'll be easy to spot. First he will look like:what: then :fire:
     
  17. Joejojoba111

    Joejojoba111 Member

    Joined:
    Mar 7, 2005
    Messages:
    1,056
    Fire is the most dangerous situation to happen to occupied buildings, above terrorists or tornadoes or giant apes. Holding a molotov is much like pointing a gun at every occupant, using that device is akin to firing. Clearly the use of force in defence is justified. And even if the law said otherwise that wouldn't change a thing.
     
  18. LAK

    LAK Member

    Joined:
    Jul 28, 2004
    Messages:
    2,487
    I do not know the State law in CA; in some states arson is a felony which can be prevented with deadly force.

    But, personally, I would take this approach in any state; molotovs or firebombs by any other name represent a form of immediate deadly peril, and deadly force would be the response.

    --------------------------------------
    http://ussliberty.org
    http://ssunitedstates.org
     
  19. tellner

    tellner member

    Joined:
    Apr 17, 2004
    Messages:
    2,104
    Location:
    Oregon
    If you really believe that you or an innocent will probably die unless you shoot, then you shoot. The chance of future prison against the certainty of immediate death isn't a difficult choice. If you're looking for an excuse to shoot you probably shouldn't. The question is, does the particular case of arson qualify?
     
  20. Technosavant

    Technosavant Member

    Joined:
    Mar 24, 2005
    Messages:
    2,011
    Location:
    St. Louis, MO
    MO law lists arson as one of a number of crimes in which deadly force is justifiable to prevent.

    I would also think that a Molotov Cocktail or other incendiary device could be considered a lethal weapon. These perps have no respect for human life; you could make a case that if they see you, they will try to use them on you as well.

    Either way, they are not just going to be starting fire, they are going to be taking it.
     
  21. XD_fan

    XD_fan Member

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2005
    Messages:
    210
    Location:
    Missouri
    In WA your good to go. Workman's book on Washington Gun Owner's Rights and Responsiblities specifically mentions just this scenario.
     
  22. Guy B. Meredith

    Guy B. Meredith Member

    Joined:
    Dec 25, 2002
    Messages:
    2,315
    Location:
    Salem, Oregon
    Well, after the mention of Workman's book I put on my reading glasses, went to the California DOJ site and found the attached.

    Basically, the rules are much broader even here in California than I thought. Robbery sometimes falls under the umbrella if there is fear of harm during the commission. Still no TX style chasing down felons, but more than I thought.

    Firebombers in my area will be receiving 12 GA slugs and 00 buckshot depending on the range.
     

    Attached Files:

  23. Guy B. Meredith

    Guy B. Meredith Member

    Joined:
    Dec 25, 2002
    Messages:
    2,315
    Location:
    Salem, Oregon
    By the way, I did send a query to the Cal DOJ and received the reply that I would need to go to local authorities for a legal opinion.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page