Elderly Man Faces Prison For Defending Property Against Illegals
- Thread starter AAAintheBeltway
- Start date
The law in every jurisdiction I'm aware of is that you are only allowed to use deadly force to protect your own life or the life of someone with you. In addition, some states have laws allowing the use of deadly force without any need for justification in defense of your home.
You are not allowed to shoot someone to stop them from fleeing with stolen property. In many jurisdictions, the police are extremely hostile to armed self-help, and the prosecutors are typically far left anti-gun zealots. If you are planning on using a weapon if the need arises, you should make it a point to know your jurisdiction's laws. I would also advise not to give a statement to the police until consulting your lawyer. You are under no obligation to explain yourself. Of course, they will probably arrest you, but if the shooting was dodgy you are far better being arrested than giving a statement that puts you behind bars. I would only say "I was scared for my life" and act all shaken up, even if you aren't.
You are not allowed to shoot someone to stop them from fleeing with stolen property. In many jurisdictions, the police are extremely hostile to armed self-help, and the prosecutors are typically far left anti-gun zealots. If you are planning on using a weapon if the need arises, you should make it a point to know your jurisdiction's laws. I would also advise not to give a statement to the police until consulting your lawyer. You are under no obligation to explain yourself. Of course, they will probably arrest you, but if the shooting was dodgy you are far better being arrested than giving a statement that puts you behind bars. I would only say "I was scared for my life" and act all shaken up, even if you aren't.
Big mistake, which is exactly what the shooter, Wallace, initially lied about the shooting. This is the reason he was charged with attempted murder.
the rest of the story left out by the original poster:
furthermore, the reason the police was slow to apprehend and charge the two thieves were because they were still under investigation for other crimes:
Magna
Administrator
And that's only if you can demonstrate to the satisfaction of a jury that you were in imminent danger. For instance, a short while ago AAA posted a video advertisement made by a gunshop with a pretty girl at home who, with fully automatic machine gun fire, blows away a lurker while the bad guy was only carrying a knife and had not even entered her home. It was exciting to watch, some even said sexy, but she would probably be tried for murder, no less than manslaughter, as she was not in any imminent danger. Imminent means immediate, not 5 minutes from now. And on top of that she would probably have a civil suit brought against her for, among other things, excessive force, etc. In my homestate a man was sent to prison for a couple of years for using excessive force because he shot an attacker outside (in the woods) with a 10mm pistol which is a fairly large caliber. Dirty Harry and his .44 Magnum might be cool on the big screen, but in most jurisdictions and self-defense situations that is considered excessive force.
Usually called "Castle Laws" they permit the use of deadly force if you are in imminent danger, but generally not for the protection of property.
That's true, no matter how you feel about it. And get this -- punks with tire irons could trash your new Ferrari right in front of you, and you have no right to use lethal force if your life is not in imminent danger.
Agreed. It will almost always work against you. Remember, Miranda says, "Anything you say can and will be used against you." It doesn't say it will be used for your benefit.
Bottom line, most people here think you have a right to "defend" your property. In one sense you do, but in almost all cases you don't if that includes lethal force. An excellent book that explains the way things are (rather than the way you want them to be) is "In the Gravest Extreme: The Role of the Firearm in Personal Protection" by Massad Ayoob, a former police officer, instructor, and firearms specialist. I feel bad for the elderly man mentioned by the OP but he was wrong to use lethal force in that situation. I live in a very gun-friendly state (Arizona), took a course for a concealed permit, and it was a real eye-opener as to the way things actually work regarding criminal and civil liability compared to the "self-defense rights" I thought I had. Piss and moan all you want, but find out the reality how you might be placing yourself, your family, and your life savings at risk before you transform into Wyatt Earp and enter a situation with guns a' blazing.
I wasn't outraged at all when I read what was first posted here. I knew the story had some type of ommision, and it turns out that the ommision was that the property owner lied to police during the investigation. That's why he's facing charges. He brought it on himself. Had he told the truth from the begining, all would have been fine.
You are right of course. The SSS rule is something people out here use regarding coyotes. If a coyote is taking pets sometimes out here they just shoot them, dispose of them and keep quiet since its illegal to hunt them.
I once "caught" a couple of guys I perceived to be illegals lighting a fire on my property during fire season. I just popped up on a ridge right above them with an M1A. They ran and I simply called the fire dept.
If someone was taking my flatbed trailer I would just call the police and then file an insurance claim. In california generally you are going to jail if you use a firearm to defend yourself. That makes this place dangerous.
Here, pointing a gun at someone is assault. If it is a shotgun and you rack it then point it you can be charged with aggravated assault. I confront trespassers routinely but it is with the weapon held like a farmer over one forearm, pointed down and no round chambered. It does the trick though. Probably a little freaky for folks back east and up north to read that but it is the reality of the rural southwest.
I once "caught" a couple of guys I perceived to be illegals lighting a fire on my property during fire season. I just popped up on a ridge right above them with an M1A. They ran and I simply called the fire dept.
If someone was taking my flatbed trailer I would just call the police and then file an insurance claim. In california generally you are going to jail if you use a firearm to defend yourself. That makes this place dangerous.
Here, pointing a gun at someone is assault. If it is a shotgun and you rack it then point it you can be charged with aggravated assault. I confront trespassers routinely but it is with the weapon held like a farmer over one forearm, pointed down and no round chambered. It does the trick though. Probably a little freaky for folks back east and up north to read that but it is the reality of the rural southwest.
My views are somewhat up in the air when it comes to cases like this, on the one hand i think that most of these lowlifes are a perpetual burden to society, meaning that right when they get out of jail they go out and start thieving again, and people like that quite frankly, deserve to live.
On the other hand, where do you draw the line? Does some young punk kid, or a drug addict running away with a case of beer from a convenient store deserve to be shot in the back? Probably not.
At what point is is justifiable to shoot a thief who poses very little risk of harm to you? How could laws possibly be enacted to say that one deserves a bullet and the other doesnt. So unfortunately you have to take the lesser of 2 evils and say that none of them should be shot dead if they pose no direct threat.
It sucks when you have to bite the bullet and let the hardened thugs get away with it because some people are less harmful criminals, but the last thing we need is a bunch of armed sociopaths taking aim at, and shooting dead the first person who robs a case of beer from a convenience store, or something similar.
I would like to think it would deter crime if criminals knew that people were legally allowed to shoot to kill them if they robbed someone else, but i am more inclined to think it would end up the total opposite, and most thieves would simply become more violent, and most situations would end in the death of 1 of the 2 parties involved.
Perhaps they could create new murder laws which are lesser degrees of manslaughter whereby if you shoot someone who is robbing you but you have a crystal clear criminal record it is just parole and a criminal record for the first offense, provided that you didnt intentionally put yourself in the situation, (i.e. shoot someone breaking into a neighbours house, or shooting a person stealing from a convenience store which isnt theirs.) but i have a feeling there are still a lot of psychos lurking in the weeds waiting to use their guns, who would be more than willing to take the first charge just to get payback on a thieving piece of crap.
It is a tough situation.
On the other hand, where do you draw the line? Does some young punk kid, or a drug addict running away with a case of beer from a convenient store deserve to be shot in the back? Probably not.
At what point is is justifiable to shoot a thief who poses very little risk of harm to you? How could laws possibly be enacted to say that one deserves a bullet and the other doesnt. So unfortunately you have to take the lesser of 2 evils and say that none of them should be shot dead if they pose no direct threat.
It sucks when you have to bite the bullet and let the hardened thugs get away with it because some people are less harmful criminals, but the last thing we need is a bunch of armed sociopaths taking aim at, and shooting dead the first person who robs a case of beer from a convenience store, or something similar.
I would like to think it would deter crime if criminals knew that people were legally allowed to shoot to kill them if they robbed someone else, but i am more inclined to think it would end up the total opposite, and most thieves would simply become more violent, and most situations would end in the death of 1 of the 2 parties involved.
Perhaps they could create new murder laws which are lesser degrees of manslaughter whereby if you shoot someone who is robbing you but you have a crystal clear criminal record it is just parole and a criminal record for the first offense, provided that you didnt intentionally put yourself in the situation, (i.e. shoot someone breaking into a neighbours house, or shooting a person stealing from a convenience store which isnt theirs.) but i have a feeling there are still a lot of psychos lurking in the weeds waiting to use their guns, who would be more than willing to take the first charge just to get payback on a thieving piece of crap.
It is a tough situation.
You place yourself in the shoes of the person you are protecting with deadly force, if that person is in the wrong you have helped that person break the law using your weapon.
Lesson, don't pull it unless you know exactly what you are doing, sometimes situations are not what they seem.
If deadly force is used, btw, just brandishing your weapon is consider deadly force, even without discharge.
Step 1. (using your cell phone) call 911 and report a violent incident has occurred at ________________ please send an ambulance, give them your name and detailed description of yourself and hang up, do not answer the phone when they call you back, as they will and are trained to get as much info for the local law enforcement as possible.
Step 2. Holster your weapon and have ready your i.d. and conceal carry permit, when the police arrive place your hands in the air and obey every command given, do not under any circumstance touch your weapon.
Step 3. Inform the officer that you wish to speak to your attorney and shut up. Do not answer any questions without legal counsel present regardless of what an officer tells you.
Yeah it sounds like he did not even call the police. The wounded guy showed up at the hospital with a gunshot wound and the hospital called the police.
Old fella must have known he'd hit someone otherwise he would have reported the theft.
My flatbed trailer is worth 2-3k and it has a 12,000lb winch with a forklift battery and new tires. When it isn't attached to a vehicle it is covered by my homeowners policy. Can't see popping somebody over the cost of a deductible.