Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 11 to 17 of 17

Thread: The legality of defending property with firearms

  1. #11
    Site Supporter 0ddl0t's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2019
    Location
    Jefferson
    California

    197.
    Homicide is also justifiable when committed by any person in any of the following cases:

    (4) When necessarily committed in attempting, by lawful ways and means, to apprehend any person for any felony committed, or in lawfully suppressing any riot, or in lawfully keeping and preserving the peace.

  2. #12
    Site Supporter
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Location
    Canton GA
    Quote Originally Posted by DocSabo40 View Post
    I'm seeing a lot of posts about business owners in riot areas protecting their property with firearms. I have not heard of any shots being fired. I'm interested in the legality of this. If someone breaks into my house, there is a high probability that they will end up being shot and I will not face criminal charges (I live in GA). Does the same standard apply to the businesses? If a rioter breaks the window with a brick and then forces entry, what could one of these business owners do? I would assume it is largely based on geography, but is there any common ground?

    Go easy on me, this is a request for information not a political or moral statement. I keep hearing about more and more folks gearing up for the riots, but I assume the standards of a DGU are still in place during a riot.
    Depends on where you live in GA. Inside the Perimeter - risky move for the property owner. Outside the Perimeter - tie might go to the property owner.

  3. #13
    In New York, I have no specific duty to retreat (castle doctrine), but deadly force still needs justification. Which is fine for me, I'm not looking for an excuse to shoot someone. Outside the home, there is a requirement to retreat.

    One of the acceptable justifications for deadly force is arson against a structure (not domicile) that one reasonably believes is occupied. I'm not aware of any cases involving what I feel would be borderline cases, such as an occupied large warehouse. In other words, yes, there might be some arson, but there's no reason to believe it would be a deadly threat to anyone inside. I would also be interested to see a case of deadly force in defense of a barn. I'm pretty sure most juries up here in horse country would laugh themselves to a five-minute acquittal, but I'm guessing most DAs wouldn't even bother filing charges.

    Whether there was a riot afoot would make no difference, aside from being justified by the number of attackers. You would not be justified in using deadly force simply to prevent property damage. I know there are some states where that is, according to the letter of the law, legal, but I sure as shit wouldn't hang my hat on it.

  4. #14
    Site Supporter OlongJohnson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2015
    Location
    "carbine-infested rural (and suburban) areas"
    Texas, pasted out of the compilation of code published specifically relevant to carrying and use of weapons:

    https://www.dps.texas.gov/InternetFo...rms/ltc-16.pdf

    SUBCHAPTER D. PROTECTION OF PROPERTY
    Sec. 9.41. PROTECTION OF ONE'S OWN PROPERTY.
    (a) A person in lawful possession of land or tangible, movable property is
    justified in using force against another when and to the degree the actor reasonably
    believes the force is immediately necessary to prevent or terminate the other's trespass
    on the land or unlawful interference with the property.
    (b) A person unlawfully dispossessed of land or tangible, movable property by
    another is justified in using force against the other when and to the degree the actor
    reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to reenter the land or recover
    the property if the actor uses the force immediately or in fresh pursuit after the
    dispossession and:
    (1) the actor reasonably believes the other had no claim of right when he
    dispossessed the actor; or
    (2) the other accomplished the dispossession by using force, threat, or
    fraud against the actor.
    Sec. 9.42. DEADLY FORCE TO PROTECT PROPERTY.
    A person is justified in using deadly force against another to protect land or
    tangible, movable property:
    (1) if he would be justified in using force against the other under Section
    9.41; and
    (2) when and to the degree he reasonably believes the deadly force is
    immediately necessary:
    (A) to prevent the other's imminent commission of arson, burglary,
    robbery, aggravated robbery, theft during the nighttime, or criminal mischief during the
    nighttime; or
    (B) to prevent the other who is fleeing immediately after
    committing burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, or theft during the nighttime from
    escaping with the property; and
    (3) he reasonably believes that:
    (A) the land or property cannot be protected or recovered by any
    other means; or
    (B) the use of force other than deadly force to protect or recover
    the land or property would expose the actor or another to a substantial risk of death or
    serious bodily injury.
    Sec. 9.43. PROTECTION OF THIRD PERSON'S PROPERTY.
    A person is justified in using force or deadly force against another to protect
    land or tangible, movable property of a third person if, under the circumstances as he
    reasonably believes them to be, the actor would be justified under Section 9.41 or 9.42
    in using force or deadly force to protect his own land or property and:
    (1) the actor reasonably believes the unlawful interference constitutes
    attempted or consummated theft of or criminal mischief to the tangible, movable
    property; or
    (2) the actor reasonably believes that:
    (A) the third person has requested his protection of the land or
    property;
    (B) he has a legal duty to protect the third person's land or
    property; or
    (C) the third person whose land or property he uses force or
    deadly force to protect is the actor's spouse, parent, or child, resides with the actor, or is
    under the actor's care.
    Sec. 9.44. USE OF DEVICE TO PROTECT PROPERTY.
    The justification afforded by Sections 9.41 and 9.43 applies to the use of a
    device to protect land or tangible, movable property if:
    (1) the device is not designed to cause, or known by the actor to create
    a substantial risk of causing, death or serious bodily injury; and
    (2) use of the device is reasonable under all the circumstances as the
    actor reasonably believes them to be when he installs the device.
    .
    -----------------------------------------
    Not another dime.

  5. #15
    Site Supporter Sero Sed Serio's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    Location
    Phoenix, AZ
    Arizona allows the use of non-lethal force to prevent theft or criminal damage. The statute notes that lethal force may be used in other circumstances, and references the applicable statutes:


    A.R.S. § 13-408 Justification; use of physical force in defense of property

    A person is justified in using physical force against another when and to the extent that a reasonable person would believe it necessary to prevent what a reasonable person would believe is an attempt or commission by the other person of theft or criminal damage involving tangible movable property under his possession or control, but such person may use deadly physical force under these circumstances as provided in sections 13-405
    [justification; use of deadly physical force], 13-406 [justification; defense of a third person] and 13-411 [justification; use of force in crime prevention; applicability].


    One of the things that jumps out at me about Arizona's statute is that it contains a double "reasonable person" standard: a reasonable person believes force is necessary to prevent what a reasonable person believes is theft or criminal damage. The statutes relating to use of non-lethal force, use of lethal force, and even use of force in crime prevention (A.R.S. § 13-411 allows the use of deadly force to prevent the commission of certain crimes, even if there is no belief that death or serious injury will occur, although for some of these crimes there is an inherent risk of death/serious injury) only reference "reasonable person" once; i.e. deadly force is justified if "a reasonable person would believe that deadly physical force is immediately necessary to protect himself" against another's unlawful use of deadly force. A.R.S. § 13-405.

    Arizona Revised Statutes do not define "reasonable person," nor do our standardized jury instructions (Revised Arizona Jury Instructions, or RAJI, which contains over 600 pages of standardized definitions of legal terms and elements of crimes that have been hashed out by a panel of prosecutors, defense attorneys, and judges). To me this is a huge red flag, as judges within the same jurisdiction might approve vastly different definitions of "reasonable person," let alone judges in different jurisdictions. I believe that the legislature wanted to create a somewhat higher standard for the use of force to protect property vs. the use of force to protect life and limb or to prevent serious crimes, and thus leads me to believe that a much more conservative approach should be taken in the use of force to protect property alone. My common sense opinion as to when someone should resort to use of force (lethal or non-lethal) to protect property vs. to protect life and limb mirrors my statutory interpretation.

  6. #16
    banana republican blues's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2016
    Location
    Blue Ridge Mtns
    Relevant, up to the moment discussion regarding self defense and defense of property with attorney Don West...

    There's nothing civil about this war.

    Read: Harrison Bergeron

  7. #17
    Member KellyinAvon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2019
    Location
    Indiana
    Quote Originally Posted by BehindBlueI's View Post
    It counts as curtilage. The part that's going to be relevant is "reasonably believes that the force is necessary" though, and I suspect you'll find the prosecutor's office will be significantly more interested in minute detail vs breaking into a house where it's much more bright line. I wouldn't be the guy who blasted a drunk sitting on my patio furniture for failing to move along. OC in that situation hasn't caused any raised eyebrows locally, though. Although it was a woman doing the spraying and women tend to get more of the benefit of the doubt when using force against a man in any circumstance.
    If I found a drunk passed out on my curtilage I think I’d just call the Police. Non-emergency number if they didn’t seem to be in distress.

User Tag List

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •