Please Read My "Deadly Force" State Law And Tell Me What You Think

[happygunner]

Like many States when it comes to your property using deadly force can be real costly. Unless in trying to protect your property you are in real fear of being killed using deadly force will land you in court.

Now if you live way down south in LA your in luck you can use deadly force to protect your property. wish all States were like LA.

[hacker15]

Man, I have enough trouble keeping up with MY states "use of force" laws...

Sorry - this one sounds something like NY Satte's, but you (at least) don't have the "duty to retreat" clause we're stuck with.....

[Ed 2001 SS]

Originally Posted by Mark M

You are exactly right in that the key word is "reasonable", and the determination of what is reasonable is NOT written in the law itself, but in how "reasonable" is seen as being so by the jury.

Remember that Bernard Goetz was acquitted of shooting 4 thugs on a New York Subway. So evidently, the jury felt that even though the prosecution felt that Goetz was an attempted murderer, the jury did NOT and felt that his actions were "reasonable".

Unfortunately for Goetz, he did some things that a civil jury later thought was NOT reasonable when he tried to shoot Cabey one more time so he had a judgement against him, but only for the "un" reasonable part of the shooting, not the primary actions of his shootings.

Additionally, Goetz WAS judged guilty of illegally carrying a weapon, but I don't think he cared much about that since it was a choice to him of either being found guilty of that charge or possibly being killed himself in a mugging.

The whole case and it's aftermath turned out to be just a big mess, but the most important part of the event, Goetz' indictment for attempted murder, is the part that a jury saw was a "reasonable" response so they acquitted him.

At the civil trial, Bernie had a hard time explaining away the fact that, after he shot all of the thugs, he came back to one whom he had already shot and was down and said something like "you look like you can use another," reloaded his revolver and shot the guy again. Bernie went free because subway crime in New York was at an all time high and the jurors most likely felt they would have done the same thing.

[Sirius1963]

Originally Posted by demon

My take on this is that if someone is breaking into your car outside your house, you don't have the right to shoot first and ask questions later. If you go outside to investigate and they run off, you can't shoot at them because they are not a threat to your life any more. If you catch them in the act and they give up and put their hands in the air, you can't shoot them. If they come around the front of your vehicle towards you with a screwdriver then you have the right to defend yourself just like in any other situation. If they are driving off in your vehicle, you don't have the right to shoot at them. It is the belief in personal harm that would make a shooting justified, not the loss of personal property.

Not necessarily... in Washington (Seattle area), a homeowner heard something in his back yard, and went to investigate. He confronted a BG, and the BG ran away from him, homeowner shot him. Turns out, the BG was running toward the back fence, which was about 8ft high. The judge decided that the BG was going to get to the fence, and then turn around and come back towards the homeowner, which WAS a threat, so it was ruled self defense. The media sure had a field day with THAT one!

[demon]

Originally Posted by Sirius1963

Not necessarily... in Washington (Seattle area), a homeowner heard something in his back yard, and went to investigate. He confronted a BG, and the BG ran away from him, homeowner shot him. Turns out, the BG was running toward the back fence, which was about 8ft high. The judge decided that the BG was going to get to the fence, and then turn around and come back towards the homeowner, which WAS a threat, so it was ruled self defense. The media sure had a field day with THAT one!

I bet that one fed some contraversy, especially if the suspect had been shot in the back.

[DJDan]

Thank you for all of your input so far. I didnt want to say how I had read my local law and influence anyone.

To give more details on the situation I presented I should have said the truck was parked on a city street directly in front of my house. It is not fenced in as I literally do not even have a driveway to park it in. The fact that I don't have a driveway may play into the situation if it ever were to occur. We have a 1 car garage off of the alley but my GF gets it as her car is much nicer than my truck, and for that matter my truck won't even fit in there anyways.

I asked this because the vehicle directly across the street from my truck was broken into the other night. Noone was caught but I have been keeping an eye out on my vehicle as I have a nice stereo in it. I also have a security system...but that just makes some people work faster.

Thank you all for your input on this. Keep 'em coming if you like!

[KYDoc]

The way I read it, if someone breaks into your truck to steal your stereo and you shoot them, you will be charged with a crime.

If someone breaks into your truck to steal your stereo, you catch them, they advance on you with intent to do you physical harm, you MAY not be charged.

The law as it is written seems confusing.

[rtparso]

Check with local (must I use that L word) lawyer or DA. I happen to have lunch with a Judge and he enjoys discussing fine points of law. But as for discussing the law in your local court law types (not LE) the direction the Judge leans make a big difference. I asked a friend to define coercion in a custodial situation and he said he interpreted it as almost physical force. In ffice:smarttags" />lace>Albuquerquelace> there have been cases were not letting the interviewed person go to the head the first time they asked has been interpreted as coercion. Remember NM is a state the calls buying a 6 pack dispensing (dispense = distribute: administer or bestow, as in small portions).fficeffice" />>>

[one-eyed-fatman]

Just kill the bastard. The law will be figured out when it goes to a Grand Jury. They can't take you to court if your dead.

[DJDan]

I'm really glad that our law says I don't have a "duty to retreat"...that I can actually confront someone if they are attempting to rob me of my property.