Protecting Property...

Justifiable Homicide

B. For the purposes of this Section, there shall be a presumption that a person lawfully inside a dwelling, place of business, or motor vehicle held a reasonable belief that the use of deadly force was necessary to prevent unlawful entry thereto, or to compel an unlawful intruder to leave the premises or motor vehicle, if both of the following occur:

(1) The person against whom deadly force was used was in the process of unlawfully and forcibly entering or had unlawfully and forcibly entered the dwelling, place of business, or motor vehicle.

(2) The person who used deadly force knew or had reason to believe that an unlawful and forcible entry was occurring or had occurred.
-----

Does this mean that if I find someone breaking into my car, while I am in my house, or stealing steaks from my outdoor freezer, while I am in my house, that I have the right to protect my property with deadly force?

I have been curious about this for a while but never was 100% confident in my interpretation...I would like to know with certainty.

-----
My interpretation:

If I were to see someone break my car window, or jimmy my shed door, and attempt to enter, I would have to make contact to assess the threat, thus becoming reasonably in fear for my life before I could justifiably commit homicide.

That is...I cannot witness these crimes taking place and simply, justifiably, eliminate the offender upon my witness.

Am I correct?

Manimal said:

Justifiable Homicide

B. For the purposes of this Section, there shall be a presumption that a person lawfully inside a dwelling, place of business, or motor vehicle held a reasonable belief that the use of deadly force was necessary to prevent unlawful entry thereto, or to compel an unlawful intruder to leave the premises or motor vehicle, if both of the following occur:

(1) The person against whom deadly force was used was in the process of unlawfully and forcibly entering or had unlawfully and forcibly entered the dwelling, place of business, or motor vehicle.

(2) The person who used deadly force knew or had reason to believe that an unlawful and forcible entry was occurring or had occurred.
-----

Does this mean that if I find someone breaking into my car, while I am in my house, or stealing steaks from my outdoor freezer, while I am in my house, that I have the right to protect my property with deadly force?

I have been curious about this for a while but never was 100% confident in my interpretation...I would like to know with certainty.

-----
My interpretation:

If I were to see someone break my car window, or jimmy my shed door, and attempt to enter, I would have to make contact to assess the threat, thus becoming reasonably in fear for my life before I could justifiably commit homicide.

That is...I cannot witness these crimes taking place and simply, justifiably, eliminate the offender upon my witness.

Am I correct?

Click to expand...

IANAL
you will NOT be covered:

Does this mean that if I find someone breaking into my car, while I am in my house, or stealing steaks from my outdoor freezer, while I am in my house, that I have the right to protect my property with deadly force?

Click to expand...

the problem is thats a gray area. you HAVE to convince people you were in fear. the "lawyer up" advice directly contradicts any advice i give you. those who prefer to "lawyer up" i would HIGHLY suggest contacting the retained said legal council on this SPECIFIC matter PRIOR to performing said act.

jmho. and my actual experience. i agree i am not as savvy at i-law. i can only speak from experience at such instances, experience in court, and reading other examples.

If you are in your home and someone illegally enters or tries to enter you are justified in using dealy force. Same for your car. You must be IN them.

Otherwise, the justifiable homocide law with force continuum, reasonable fear and all that comes into play. I'd type more or provide a link but I'm on my phone.

IMO & experience, if you engage a possibly armed offender who is actively invading your home or vehicle, while you were in it, you are legally sound in utilizing deadly force. Leaving the apparent safety of your home and engaging an offender who was burglarizing your vehicle or freezer, may not leave you on such good legal footing. In my estimation in that case, your should telephone the police and avail yourself to being a good witness to the situation, not an actor in it.

This reminds me of the excellent movie American History X
Video might not be work safe due to profanity and racial slurs.
[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AbOKAPmGgAU&feature=related[/ame]

dspd204 said:

IMO & experience, if you engage a possibly armed offender who is actively invading your home or vehicle, while you were in it, you are legally sound in utilizing deadly force. Leaving the apparent safety of your home and engaging an offender who was burglarizing your vehicle or freezer, may not leave you on such good legal footing. In my estimation in that case, your should telephone the police and avail yourself to being a good witness to the situation, not an actor in it.

Click to expand...

i agree. ill add i USED to have the audio tape of greg patin shooting a car burglar with a 12 ga while on 911. they did shoot at him first.

and i may or may not go outside, but i have confidence in my actions.

Manimal said:

-----

Does this mean that if I find someone breaking into my car, while I am in my house, or stealing steaks from my outdoor freezer, while I am in my house, that I have the right to protect my property with deadly force?

-----

Click to expand...

From my CHP instructor, "Let 'em go".

You aren't in the car; you aren't in your outdoor freezer.

CajunTim said:

This reminds me of the excellent movie American History X
Video might not be work safe due to profanity and racial slurs.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AbOKAPmGgAU&feature=related

Click to expand...

If only it was in Texas.

Thank you, I am now more confident/reinforced.

http://bayoushooter.com/forums/showthread.php?t=3073

In the early 90's, my truck was burglarized twice. They didn't take anything the first time and I called EBRSO to get the incident on record. Three detectives came out and told me to get a pager alarm so I could call the police while they were in the truck. I told them that the next call they would probably get would be for them to come and pick up the bodies from my driveway. They said "you don't want to shoot them". I responded "who doesn't??"... About a week later, I attempted to arm my alarm, and it wouldn't arm. I proceeded to my driveway and noticed my truck door open and 2 guys running across the street with all of my stuff. I was on the phone with my GF and I told her to call 911 and report the burglary. I then grabbed my .45 and took off after them. I arrived at the front of their car right after they entered it. I stood in front of the car and was holding them at gunpoint when the driver started the car. I fired 1 warning shot. The driver put the car in gear and proceeded to drive over me to get away. I dove to the side and while falling and the car driving past, I commenced to depositing large quantities of lead into the car. They drove off, probably feeling a draft in the cockpit of their newly remodeled Toyota Celica. The same detectives responded and when they got out of their car they asked, "well, did you get'em", and then laughed about it. I was never taken into custody, my weapon wasn't taken and I never went to the station. I personally believe I was wrong in my actions because I put myself in harms way. Yes, I told the detectives that they tried to run over me and I was defending myself, but the fact remains that they couldn't have run over me if I wouldn't have parked my DA in front of their car. Had I killed one of them, I believe I would have been arrested and prosecuted. I doubt I would have been convicted by a jury of my peers, but I don't have any personal possessions that I would be willing to trade for an intimate relationship with a well hung 6'5" thug in the joint. My CHP instructor also told me I shouldn't have engaged them...but I couldn't resist.

Just my 2 cents.

thanks for posting that Ja.

Why shoot them if you don't have to? Are you really able to kill someone over a STEAK? I mean, it's something I'd much rather not have niggling at my conscience for the rest of my life.

There is no way you can shoot someone you didn't really have to, and not think later on what else you might have done.

Seems to me those laws above are more oriented at the people without a conscience.

Suburbazine said:

Why shoot them if you don't have to? I mean, it's something I'd much rather not have niggling at my conscience for the rest of my life.

Click to expand...

Hey now...let's not be racist. Not all criminals are black.

I'd say let them go unless they are a direct threat. However, wasn't there an actual case in LA where someone went outside and killed someone breaking into their car, and won their case setting precedent? I think it was on that "Shoot or Don't Shoot" news special a few years back.

SpeedRacer said:

Hey now...let's not be racist. Not all criminals are black.

I'd say let them go unless they are a direct threat. However, wasn't there an actual case in LA where someone went outside and killed someone breaking into their car, and won their case setting precedent? I think it was on that "Shoot or Don't Shoot" news special a few years back.

Click to expand...

Wasn't meant to be racist lol. I know it looks similar, but it means "holding on to and wiggling"

Suburbazine said:

Wasn't meant to be racist lol. I know it looks similar, but it means "holding on to and wiggling"

Click to expand...

I know.

Its just a question. I carry a flashlight, pepper spray, a knife, and a gun every day...and I hope to never have to use any of them, except that flashlight b/c its fun.

BTW, the steak thieves are some college frat boys. I wouldn't kill them but I might want to kick their ****ing teeth out.

Suburbazine said:

Why shoot them if you don't have to? Are you really able to kill someone over a STEAK? I mean, it's something I'd much rather not have niggling at my conscience for the rest of my life.

There is no way you can shoot someone you didn't really have to, and not think later on what else you might have done.

Seems to me those laws above are more oriented at the people without a conscience.

Click to expand...

im willing to do many things people are unwilling to do, or think is excessive. i dont feel its necessary for people to do ANYTHING they dont "want" to do.

the problem is WE follow laws. others do not.

SpeedRacer said:

Hey now...let's not be racist. Not all criminals are black.

I'd say let them go unless they are a direct threat. However, wasn't there an actual case in LA where someone went outside and killed someone breaking into their car, and won their case setting precedent? I think it was on that "Shoot or Don't Shoot" news special a few years back.

Click to expand...

There was a case in Metairie a couple years back where someone shoot the suspect breaking into his car from the 2nd story balcony of his apartment. It was a lucky shot, but he did kill him and was not charged (or maybe he was, but he was not convicted). IIRC, this was the second time someone had broke into his car in a short amount of time.

If a person keeps a gun in their locked car and sees someone breaking into that car...it seems as though it would be reasonable to fear for ones life, and the lives of anyone that burglar should face after breaking in to that persons car.

Manimal said:

If a person keeps a gun in their locked car and sees someone breaking into that car...it seems as though it would be reasonable to fear for ones life, and the lives of anyone that burglar should face after breaking in to that persons car.

Click to expand...

you do have a responsibility for who has control of your guns.