Ruger Forum banner

61 - 73 of 73 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
57 Posts
I was attending a Concealed Carry forum with cops in attendance. The subject came up about shooting a home intruder. A cop said that if the intruder is attempting to get away let them go for the cops to deal with. You should have heard the crowd groan. BTW, this was in Jefferson County Missouri.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
31 Posts
I went back and actually watched the TV video this time and picked up a detail that wasn’t apparent in the written article: the homeowner shot at the suspect’s vehicle as he was driving away, shooting through the rear window.

This is not a “good shoot”, even in Texas.

Now, I completely understand the frustration of watching someone driving away with your stuff, but there’s no way you’re going to argue that you were “in reasonable fear of death or serious injury” from a person driving away from you.

At this point, it’s all up to the homeowner’s lawyer.

The “take-home” point is that you should never shoot out of anger or frustration. The only legally justified reason to shoot someone is fear.


Jim

Maybe the homeowner was afraid that the criminal would come back. There's your fear argument. If criminals knew that they would be shot for stealing other people's stuff, then there would be fewer crimes. The stupid ones would never commit another crime and the smarter ones would find a less risky line of work. Maybe even a real job. Unfortunately, the Justice system has been coddling these criminals and they know that the punishment for their crimes is non existant if any so is a no brainer. How pathetic it is that a criminal can sue his victim. I blame that on the lawyers, many of which are also stupid lawmakers.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,218 Posts
Maybe the homeowner was afraid that the criminal would come back. There's your fear argument. If criminals knew that they would be shot for stealing other people's stuff, then there would be fewer crimes. The stupid ones would never commit another crime and the smarter ones would find a less risky line of work. Maybe even a real job. Unfortunately, the Justice system has been coddling these criminals and they know that the punishment for their crimes is non existant if any so is a no brainer. How pathetic it is that a criminal can sue his victim. I blame that on the lawyers, many of which are also stupid lawmakers.
No argument here. However, the law (in all 58 states) requires that the threat be immediate, proximate and credible to justify deadly force. The first two were not met in this case, even if the perp had said, “I’m coming back to get you!” as he drove away.

These requirements trip up a number of domestic violence victims (typically but not always women) who kill their abusers. The abuser (and it’s usually, but not always a man) may say, “I’m going to kill you when I get home tonight!”, but that isn’t justification for deadly force, under the law (not immediate).

One case I remember vividly was a woman whose husband used to beat her viciously when he came home drunk (usually payday). One night, he came home drunk and before he could lay a hand on her, she killed him with a cast iron skillet. Unfortunately, she admitted to detectives that she had ambushed him as he walked in the door, before he even threatened her, so she was facing 2nd degree murder. The jury used their brains, though, and refused to convict.

Killing a person is easy; the hard part is everything that comes after.


Jim
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
316 Posts
Here in AZ you can only use 'Physical Force' to stop someone from stealing your empty car, but if you are IN the vehicle then you are justified in using 'Deadly Physical Force' to protect yourself (not the car) For example, if someone rips open your door while you're waiting at a light, go ahead and shoot. Any reasonable person would assume it's a carjacking. Protect yourself.

If I try to stop someone from stealing my parked-and-empty car using only 'Physical Force', and they turn around with a knife or a gun, NOW I am justified in using 'Deadly Physical Force' to protect myself (not the car)

Make sure it's about defending YOU, not the car.

Now, if someone was IN my car, trying to steal it, and I was close enough, I might be tempted to shoot out a couple of my own tires to prevent them from going anywhere. Cheaper than replacing a wrecked or stolen car and might even save lives.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,019 Posts
Here in AZ you can only use 'Physical Force' to stop someone from stealing your empty car, but if you are IN the vehicle then you are justified in using 'Deadly Physical Force' to protect yourself (not the car) For example, if someone rips open your door while you're waiting at a light, go ahead and shoot. Any reasonable person would assume it's a carjacking. Protect yourself.

If I try to stop someone from stealing my parked-and-empty car using only 'Physical Force', and they turn around with a knife or a gun, NOW I am justified in using 'Deadly Physical Force' to protect myself (not the car)

Make sure it's about defending YOU, not the car.

Now, if someone was IN my car, trying to steal it, and I was close enough, I might be tempted to shoot out a couple of my own tires to prevent them from going anywhere. Cheaper than replacing a wrecked or stolen car and might even save lives.
Shooting the tires might sound reasonable but I'm guessing once you pull out your gun you might be taking more risk than what its actually worth.
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
21,215 Posts
I was attending a Concealed Carry forum with cops in attendance. The subject came up about shooting a home intruder. A cop said that if the intruder is attempting to get away let them go for the cops to deal with. You should have heard the crowd groan. BTW, this was in Jefferson County Missouri.
If he is running away your life is no longer in danger, although it is tough to say what you would do under stress I don't believe I would shoot if they turned tail.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
195 Posts
This is why i have USCCA insurance.

So many if's. I don't think I'd shoot but if? Do you really want to think about a "what if" when somebody is violating you or your property? Split decision. Thankfully from what I understand Tennessee is one of the better states to own a firearm in. I'm packing.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,218 Posts
Just a quick review of the requirements to justify lethal force:

1. The person has to be in reasonable fear of death or serious injury.
”reasonable” means “would a reasonable person, in the same situation, in possession of the same information, have a fear of death or serious injury?”
“serious injury” is generally interpreted to mean an injury requiring medical care - it does not have to be life-threatening.​


2. The threat has to be:

a. Imminent.
it has to be something that is going to happen in the present or in the immediate future, generally held to be “within a few minutes”​


b. Proximate.
the person making or posing the threat must be close enough to carry it out​


c. Credible.
the threat has to be something the person making or posing the threat can actually do (or a “reasonable person” would believe they can do)​



Jim
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5 Posts
Legal or not, I'm "old style" happy with the outcome for the bad guy.
Me too.... I don't anticipate a positive outcome for the home/car owner but I don't feel one bit sorry for the scumbag that was attempting to rob him.

Personally I would hope I could emotionally prevent pulling the trigger.....it would be difficult for sure. For all we know the culprit made some kind of move that sparked the homeowner to react by the shoot.

Two things....

1. Don't judge someone's action ....you have no idea what you would do in a similar situation!
2. Don't rob someone! It's not worth your life!

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5 Posts
This all could have been avoided had the perp not chosen to break the law. Let's lay the blame where it belongs.

Second we do not know nearly enough to pass judgement.

For all we know, the perp was trying to take the gun from the homeowner when he was shot. Or his struggle could have caused the discharge.

Don't want to lose your life like this? Don't steal.
Boom!

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5 Posts
Gun ownership comes with a great degree of responsibility. Sometimes it pays to take time to think out the different possibilities and what ifs beforehand because when the time comes there's a good chance you won't have any time.
Good points.....agreed

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
776 Posts
Me too.... I don't anticipate a positive outcome for the home/car owner but I don't feel one bit sorry for the scumbag that was attempting to rob him.

Personally I would hope I could emotionally prevent pulling the trigger.....it would be difficult for sure. For all we know the culprit made some kind of move that sparked the homeowner to react by the shoot.

Two things....

1. Don't judge someone's action ....you have no idea what you would do in a similar situation!
2. Don't rob someone! It's not worth your life!

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk
I would change that to....Don't judge someone's action if you have no idea what you would do in a similar situation.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4 Posts
I haven’t seen a response based on Texas law, only based on the laws of your own states or what you think it should be. In Texas if you reasonably believe that you will not be able to recover your property, deadly force is authorized. If the shoot is dreamed a good shoot, you are protected from civil prosecution. When it gets to court, the judge will just dismiss the case. As some have pointed out, if it is still dark outside, that weighs heavily in your favor.
 
61 - 73 of 73 Posts
Top