righteous(?) shoot...

[maybejim]

Originally Posted by Okiedokie

Do you really think that's an appropriate response...and that the appropriate penalty for having stolen property is the loss of your life?

The question is, why would some scumbag think that stealing the property was worth his losing his life?

[Daugherty16]

All i can say is, read your state laws. Every state i am familiar with (admittedly not more than about 15) allows deadly force only when faced with great bodily injury/harm or loss of life, or to stop same from being done to someone else. Variants may include kidnapping and/or rape. The test a prosecutor or jury will consider is usually what a reasonable person would conclude - was the shooter really afraid for their life and did the situation justify use of deadly force. some states allow the use of deadly force to stop property crimes. Many states allow a presumption that someone breaking into or burglarizing your home presents an inherent threat of great bodily harm or death, thus justifying deadly force without retreating (aka Castle Doctrine). But i have never seen a law that allows you to engage with deadly force when someone disengages from the (crime, altercation, situation) and flees. In other words, if he is running (or driving) away, exactly how is he threatening you?

Used to be shooting someone in the back was the mark of a coward. Generally now it's considered murder. There are some very good threads on scenarios of Shoot/Don't shoot found on The Firing Line, with some very reasoned and experienced posts. Good reading, and maybe some of you'll tone down your killer instinct a little. We carry for personal protection, not to rid the world of thieves, as interesting as that might sound...

[CathyInBlue]

The OP's scenario was one of being out and about. What if it was back at the ol' homestead? We'll even make the following stipulations:

1) Broad daylight, clear weather, nothing obscurring the homeowner's visibility of the ne'er-do-well.

2) Therefore, the identity of the ne'er-do-well is easily discernable, and he's known to the homeowner. It should, therefore, be no real difficulty in simply phoning the cops and reporting it stolen by him.

3) He's stealing the grocery-getter truck out of the front yard, the homestead's only meaningful transportation into town to pick up supplies, the tools and material to maintain the homestead in a safe living condition, and food.

4) There are no firearms in the truck for the ne'er-do-well to be stealing, knowingly or not.

5) The ol' homestead is out in proverbial BFE, so there are no gas pumps or neighbor's houses which are liable to inadvertently stand in as a backstop.

Now, with all those stipulations, I'd still reach behind the front door, reach into the entryway closet, pull out the .308, step out onto the porch, level it, and aim CoM for the part of the ne'er-do-well I can see above the truck's waist line.

Who else would follow my example? Why or why not?

[utimmer43]

Originally Posted by CathyInBlue

Who else would follow my example? Why or why not?

I would not. Tires are cheaper than glass, and a blown tire is easier to change than cleaning blood off the dash.

Shoot the tire, call 911.

[45fella]

Originally Posted by echo_5

Many times while heading to the range with my shooting buddy, we've discussed the following scenario:
I own an SUV, and when I head to the range to shoot long guns they are in the way back and ammo is behind the driver's seat. The handgun(s) are carried on my person. Usually we stop at a particular convenience store for soda and snacks. Here is the question: If a person were to steal my truck and I exit the store to see them driving it out of the parking lot, am I justified in shooting? Grand theft-auto is a felony and now a felon is in possesion of my rifle or shotgun (or both!). The issue is that if the thief doesn't know it's there, is it legal to shoot? I would never shoot to protect property (my SUV) however I don't want persuing officers shot at with my rifle. I think it would be a righteous shoot even if the criminal isn't aware of the gun but I would be interested to hear other's input, especially current or former LEOs.

He's not a felon till he's convicted of grand theft auto in court.

You can't shoot someone in self defense if they are committing a felony UNLESS that felony is a forceable felony against another person. ie: rape, beating with a deadly weapon, etc. "Stand in their shoes rule". If you were in their shoes would you be able to shoot them in self defense????? If so, you can shoot another person in defense of someone else.

If you shot at the guy taking your SUV and killed/injured him, you would get convicted for sure and serve alot of time in prison.

If he's stealing it from your property, you'd have a chance in court, or maybe the prosecutor wouldn't even file charges.

[Daugherty16]

You can't shoot someone who is not aggressing you. Period. How hard is that? Imagine the following dialog, you in the witness chair. Except your lawyer would NEVER let you testify in this case. I truly hope the OP was a joke.

Prosecutor: So tell me again what you were thinking when you pulled the trigger?
You: well, he had my guns, my car, he had to die.
P: So, were you at any time afraid for your life, or for someone elses?
You: No. Well, he might have taken my guns and shot someone else.
P: Did the decedent point a gun at you? Threaten you? Threaten your friend or family?
You: No
P: So there was no IMMINENT THREAT. Did the decedent have the ability to harm you?
You: i don't know. i only saw someone racing away in my car.
P: So for all you knew, he might have been a pregnant woman?
You: i didn't see him.
P; Did he aim the car at you? Try to run you down? Display the ABILITY, INTENT or OPPORTUNITY to harm you in any way?
You: no.
P: And you shot him anyway?
You: Well, he had my car and my guns.
P: So you gunned him down? shot him in the back? Did you think what might happen to bystanders if you missed, or if he crashed his car into the drugstore?
You: No, he had my guns and my car.
P: So, basically you didn't think. You just made a great shot.
You: Yeah! It was wasn't it - moving target, from more than 30 yards, headshot (Boom) DRT.Wish he hadn't bled out all over my car though.
P: The Prosecution rests, your honor.

[American ME!]

Originally Posted by Daugherty16

You can't shoot someone who is not aggressing you. Period. How hard is that? Imagine the following dialog, you in the witness chair. Except your lawyer would NEVER let you testify in this case. I truly hope the OP was a joke.

Prosecutor: So tell me again what you were thinking when you pulled the trigger?
You: well, he had my guns, my car, he had to die.
P: So, were you at any time afraid for your life, or for someone elses?
You: No. Well, he might have taken my guns and shot someone else.
P: Did the decedent point a gun at you? Threaten you? Threaten your friend or family?
You: No
P: So there was no IMMINENT THREAT. Did the decedent have the ability to harm you?
You: i don't know. i only saw someone racing away in my car.
P: So for all you knew, he might have been a pregnant woman?
You: i didn't see him.
P; Did he aim the car at you? Try to run you down? Display the ABILITY, INTENT or OPPORTUNITY to harm you in any way?
You: no.
P: And you shot him anyway?
You: Well, he had my car and my guns.
P: So you gunned him down? shot him in the back? Did you think what might happen to bystanders if you missed, or if he crashed his car into the drugstore?
You: No, he had my guns and my car.
P: So, basically you didn't think. You just made a great shot.
You: Yeah! It was wasn't it - moving target, from more than 30 yards, headshot (Boom) DRT.Wish he hadn't bled out all over my car though.
P: The Prosecution rests, your honor.

Here in Texas, there is discretion. For example, years ago back in '93 I beleive, the witness to a cold blooded murder in the parking lot of a mall shot and killed the perp after ordering him to stop his car while trying to get away. He was no-billed in a heartbeat by a grand jury.

Now we have the Castle Doctrine as do many other states.

[whiskey]

...since I posted this almost 1 1/2 yrs ago. It's good to generate meaningful and mature discussion.

Originally Posted by Daugherty16

You can't shoot someone who is not aggressing you. Period. How hard is that? Imagine the following dialog, you in the witness chair. Except your lawyer would NEVER let you testify in this case. I truly hope the OP was a joke.

Prosecutor: So tell me again what you were thinking when you pulled the trigger?
You: (SLOW STEADY SQUEEZE)
P: So, were you at any time afraid for your life, or for someone elses?
You: YES
P: Did the decedent point a gun at you? Threaten you? Threaten your friend or family?
You: No
P: So there was no IMMINENT THREAT. Did the decedent have the ability to harm you?
You: YES. HE COULD HAVE RAN ME OVER.
P: So for all you knew, he might have been a pregnant woman?
You: NOPE. I SAW THE FELON
P; Did he aim the car at you? Try to run you down? Display the ABILITY, INTENT or OPPORTUNITY to harm you in any way?
You: NO
P: And you shot him anyway?
You: BEFORE HE COULD "AIM THE CAR AT ME,TRY TO RUN ME DOWN OR OTHERWISE HARM ME IN ANY WAY."
P: So you gunned him down? shot him in the back? Did you think what might happen to bystanders if you missed, or if he crashed his car into the drugstore?
You: i SHOT BECAUSE THE BACKROUND WAS CLEAR. I DIDNT AIM FOR THE HEAD.
P: So, basically you didn't think. You just made a great shot.
You: BECAUSE I THOUGHT ABOUT SAVING PEOPLE FROM DANGER
P: The Prosecution rests, your honor.

I hope you're NOT on the jury.