View Full Version : Personal Property Rights
NG550 and I were discussing personal property and your right to protect it.
At present 'The Law' allows you to use deadly force to protect yourself and residence if your life is threatened....but 'The Law' does not allow you to use deadly force protect other personal property like vehicles, tools, etc.etc.
But apparently some folks think as I do :D
Rock thrower gets shot by Crossbow (http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_CROSSBOW_ATTACK?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2011-08-30-11-06-29)
Car thief gets smoked, Property Owner gets screwed (http://www.gazette.com/articles/jury-123946-burglar-lot.html#ixzz1WAJvzqf5)
So what average Joe supposed to do in today's economy, when money extremely tight, police response times are 15-20 minutes and it he can't afford to eat the loss and/or replace the property?
The Reaper
08-30-2011, 17:37
Depends on the laws in the state where you are protecting your property.
TR
Ret10Echo
08-30-2011, 18:12
Maryland Castle Law (Yes Maryland)
FOR the purpose of providing that a person is not liable for damages for a personal injury or death of an individual who enters the person’s dwelling or place of business under certain circumstances;
Key is "Enters the persons dwelling...."
But defense of personal property is not as clear. Both are discussed as being a "reasonable" response (less lethal or that which would cause considerable bodily harm). That of course is subject to prevailing attitudes in your State or jurisdiction of residence.
greenberetTFS
08-30-2011, 18:35
Depends on the laws in the state where you are protecting your property.
TR
Exactly!......... Mississippi doesn't put up with criminal shit in our state......We will shoot you if you try to get in to my home,in to my car or anywhere on my property without my permission........:mad:
Big Teddy :munchin
Peregrino
08-30-2011, 19:29
IIRC Texas has some pretty decent laws WRT defending property. NC OTOH requires threat of death or grave bodilly harm.
Snaquebite
08-30-2011, 19:51
If a guy is stealing your vehicle and driving away...forget it. A criminal fleeing is NO threat. If he is stealing your vehicle and
you're standing in front of the vehicle...SHOOT :D
I swear I thought he was going to run over me.:eek:
OTOH...I'm really carefull when I teach CCW. In NC you have to feel an imminent threat to your life. Never talk to police or anyone else except a lawyer for at least 24 hours.
Car thief gets smoked, Property Owner gets screwed
Reasonably protecting your property and life is one thing - planning and executing an ambush is another matter altogether.
Richard :munchin
I think as long as no one sees you get into the other side of the car and then cap the thief, you should be good to go as it then becomes a "fear for one's life" situation.
But, seriously, who here is willing to kill someone over a car or other possession NOT in your dwelling? Would you take a life over material property?
I'm not willing to... not if I feel that anyone I'm with and I are not at risk. You can't be certain he doesn't have a weapon though - but "fear for one's life" requires a certain threat to be present. He might have "lethal force" tucked away in his waistband, so I may brandish perhaps... situation dependent. Anyways, good chance you put a few holes in your ride anyways.
If a guy is stealing your vehicle and driving away...forget it. A criminal fleeing is NO threat. If he is stealing your vehicle and
you're standing in front of the vehicle...SHOOT :D
I swear I thought he was going to run over me.:eek:
OTOH...I'm really carefull when I teach CCW. In NC you have to feel an imminent threat to your life. Never talk to police or anyone else except a lawyer for at least 24 hours.
This is great advice. Arizona gives you three days to make a statement IIRC.
Snaquebite
08-30-2011, 20:15
It's all about "fearing for your life". If I (and my lawyer) could convince a grand jury that the reason If shot the intruder (through the door) is because he was threatening to blast my door down with a shot gun and then kill me and my family....and BTW he may or may not have had a shotgun.
Drusagas
08-30-2011, 20:32
Texas Castle Doctrine, in recent years, was expanded to include home, vehicle, and place of business. You also do not have to show that you tried to avoid the situation first, such as backing up before firing, etc.
Pretty much, in Texas, if there's a viable threat to person or property, you're authorized deadly force. Now, if you chased a fleeing criminal down and emptied the whole magazine into their back, that's a different scenario.
"Officer, I feared for my [own, wife's, child's] life and I wanted to stop the violence."
http://www.txdps.state.tx.us/InternetForms/Forms/CHL-16.pdf
Exactly!......... Mississippi doesn't put up with criminal shit in our state......We will shoot you if you try to get in to my home,in to my car or anywhere on my property without my permission........:mad:
Big Teddy :munchin
Big Teddy,
I remember my wife saying something very similar when Katrina hit and the footage of anarchy in New Orleans hit the airwaves. She said, "there won't be any of that shit in Mississippi".
My wife (a Georgia girl who went to MS State), has that same attitude. She said that if our house were ever destroyed and we were stranded, she would sit on the rubble in a lawn chair with a shotgun and dare anyone to so much as try and take a splintered 2x4. ASK? No problem. Try and take? In her mind that is a totally different matter that she'd be willing to kill over. Defending the kids and the property that is our kids inheritance is a very black and white issue for her. Would she drop the hammer on someone for looting our stuff? Who knows..? However, I wouldn't try it. (but that's just me).
abc
Reasonably protecting your property and life is one thing - planning and executing an ambush is another matter altogether.
Richard :munchin
I think as long as no one sees you get into the other side of the car and then cap the thief, you should be good to go as it then becomes a "fear for one's life" situation.
But, seriously, who here is willing to kill someone over a car or other possession NOT in your dwelling? Would you take a life over material property?
I'm not willing to... not if I feel that anyone I'm with and I are not at risk. You can't be certain he doesn't have a weapon though - but "fear for one's life" requires a certain threat to be present. He might have "lethal force" tucked away in his waistband, so I may brandish perhaps... situation dependent. Anyways, good chance you put a few holes in your ride anyways.
Well...
At present, as 'The Law' sees it, fear for my life would indicate imminent threat of deadly force. However in theory and considering the tough times many find themselves in, especially if you are self employed....the folks who set up the ambush for the car thieves may have been protecting their livelihood, which is their life and possibly putting food on the table. In their case stolen property could have meant starvation.
In all seriousness, if someone decides to break into my vehicle or even the garage and steal my source of income......Everything stops tomorrow, business stops, the house payment stops, my kids don't eat, etc.
It is a threat to my life
In all seriousness, if someone decides to break into my vehicle or even the garage and steal my source of income......Everything stops tomorrow, business stops, the house payment stops, my kids don't eat, etc.
It is a threat to my life
Amen!
Wonder what the courts would say if I couldn't afford the deductible on my potentially stolen car if it meant I had to skip my sons insulin for two months?
We need the right to protect our property, and clean some vermin off the street.
Hey, whatever your conscience can handle. I posed my question not simply as what the law justifies 'cause I certainly believe that it's "better to be judged by twelve than carried by six."
Since paslode's scenario may not be quite what the "law" describes as threat to one's life, I would imagine the cost of a good lawyer and the time lossed due to the court case may be enough to buy a decent enough ride to work instead.
If a situation arises such as post-catastrophe, I agree that maintaining material possessions directly affect my family and my life... and there would be no law and order anyways.
You have the right to protect your property - less than lethal means or merely being a great witness hopefully are not being overlooked while you're taking up a good sight picture.
ddoering
08-31-2011, 04:52
Reasonably protecting your property and life is one thing - planning and executing an ambush is another matter altogether.
Richard :munchin
Its called tactics.:munchin
Cake_14N
08-31-2011, 08:11
I teach that to all of my CCW students. This is the reason we all carry homeowners/renters insurance. Unless there is a direct and obvious threat to a human being, never trade your bullets for your stuff. Chances are your insurance policy will cover your loss and you might be able to replace your stuff with better stuff.
New Mexico does not have castle doctrine, yet, hopefully someday soon we will get some smart peopple in the gov't and make this change happen.
Your opinions will vary, but I still believe that I carry my pistol to protect myself and my family, not necessarily to protect my tv set or computers.
Cake
Dozer523
08-31-2011, 08:52
I think as long as no one sees you get into the other side of the car and then cap the thief, you should be good to go as it then becomes a "fear for one's life" situation.
But, seriously, who here is willing to kill someone over a car or other possession NOT in your dwelling? Would you take a life over material property?
I'm not willing to... not if I feel that anyone I'm with and I are not at risk. You can't be certain he doesn't have a weapon though - but "fear for one's life" requires a certain threat to be present. He might have "lethal force" tucked away in his waistband, so I may brandish perhaps... situation dependent. Anyways, good chance you put a few holes in your ride anyways. I'm just guessing here but I'm not sure that falls within the INTENT of the law, as for the "few holes in the ride" I wonder how USAA adjustors would look at that.
1stindoor
08-31-2011, 08:56
Sorry, Paslode, I gotta go with Head and Cake on this one.
You don't have a right to take a life over "stuff." That's what insurance is for.
And if, as you said, your livelihood depends upon the "stuff" (whatever it is) then you should have really really good insurance.
I gotta disagree...when does his "want" of my stuff supercede my right to own it. Furthermore why is it then my responsibility to pay more out of pocket to cover my loss should his "wants" overpower his sense of right and wrong?
This is part of the core of the problem....we're willing to make those that earn and purchase their stuff responsible for the loss instead of those that did the taking. That drives up the secondary costs for everyone.
Lots of talk about "stuff" in this thread.
When a thief breaks into a home and takes "stuff" they take more than just the "stuff".
If it's all about "stuff" then all the Castle Laws need to be revoked and it made mandatory that all owners retreat - out of their own homes if required - to make it safe for thieves.
In my opinion thieves give up any rights they had when they set foot on an other person's property to commit a crime.
Put me on that jury. Well, in about 2 years when my number comes up again.
As long as they don't mess with any of my grooming supplies and equipment, I'm gonna let the insurance handle it; jack with any of my hair and skin stuff, though-well...
Because I'm really, really, really good-looking and it's gonna stay that way. :D
Cake_14N
08-31-2011, 09:17
Totally different scenario when you are in your home and the thief enters. This is open season on the thief as you are inside and have every right to defend yourself.
My comments were more directed at the thief taking something from my driveway or yard, or being in the house before I get home. These are the situations where I teach not to trade bullets for stuff. This all changes when there is a human being inside the house before the thief tries to enter.
If my kids are home and I think somebody has broken into the house to steal my TV...they will need to get through a very angry father protecting his children before they can have my TV.
But... if I come home and see that my front door has been kicked in and I think somebody is inside my house...and I know there is no member of my family inside, I will call 911, report the crime, and then back away from the house and wait for the police to arrive. While I am waiting I will be using my cell phone video camera to record anything that might help my case in court. But I will be outside, very agitated, waiting for the police to come and deal with the situation.
Sorry, Paslode, I gotta go with Head and Cake on this one.
You don't have a right to take a life over "stuff." That's what insurance is for.
And if, as you said, your livelihood depends upon the "stuff" (whatever it is) then you should have really really good insurance.
Wow, first time we agreed on something. :D
I'm just guessing here but I'm not sure that falls within the INTENT of the law, as for the "few holes in the ride" I wonder how USAA adjustors would look at that.
Hehe, I was waiting for someone to catch that.
greenberetTFS
08-31-2011, 10:54
I believe the best response to protecting your "stuff" was shown by those Korean shop owners we recently seen on a post here........I think it's called "Preventative Measures"!.........;)
Big Teddy :munchin
Oldrotorhead
08-31-2011, 10:57
Hehe, I was waiting for someone to catch that.
I think if you put the holes in the car it would be considered intentionally damaging property and they would not pay. This is sort of like burning down your house rather than taking out the trash, your insurance company won't pay. You might however find a lawyer that will sue the estate of the dirt bag for the holes and the blood stains.:munchin
mark46th
08-31-2011, 13:12
Maybe some of these Home Defense instructors should add a class on "How to Dispose of a Body Leaving No Trace" ...
Heck yeah, just let insurance pay for it, so they can raise my and everyone else's rates to cover their profit loss. If we punish a big enough group, then the punishment is relatively small for each individual. No big pain, no big deal, right? Speaking of pain, I think I'll tool on down to the ER next time I get hurt and not tell them I have personal medical insurance. Yeah, that would in effect be stealing, but the cost will be spread across a large group of patients, so again, no big deal.
Two different scenarios:
The "Castle Doctrine" which generally permits the "threshold defense" in some States which is pretty solid.
In general for outside of your house, the AOJ Triangle is a pretty good way to sum up your ROE (and thats really all we are talking about here to put it in perspective).
Ability
Opportunity
Jeopardy
A guy with a knife has the ability to kill you. If he is stationary and 50 meters away, there is no opportunity therefore you are not in jeopardy.
If he is running towards you the situation changes.
Also the "Retreat Doctrine" is good to include. I stepped backwards (firing stance) and realized he was coming at me so fast that if I turned to run, he would have my back wide open and I would be defenseless. At my age and with my bad leg I wouldn't have stoood a chance.
So I aimed and defended myself. It was kill or be killed.
And don't speak to the police period. I was talking Court Room testimony.
There is also something called the "Fleeing Felon" law which should be looked at.
PS: One of my first Law Classes was Criminal Law and the teacher was a pretty gal; but voraciously liberal public defender.
My first Legal Memo: "Justifiable Homicide in the State of X"
I should have put "A How To Manual for Prior Service"