33Likes
LinkBack URL
About LinkBacksBuy a new tv, move to a "castle doctrine" state, give the lawyer your address, wait and see if his buddy the burglar shows up...betcha he won't.
This is a discussion on Input and thoughts on burglary within the Carry & Defensive Scenarios forums, part of the Defensive Carry Discussions category; Buy a new tv, move to a "castle doctrine" state, give the lawyer your address, wait and see if his buddy the burglar shows up...betcha ...
Array
Buy a new tv, move to a "castle doctrine" state, give the lawyer your address, wait and see if his buddy the burglar shows up...betcha he won't.
Why?? Because at the last second, the Police are minutes away.
Array
Originally Posted by dcselby1
Ahhh...The feel good statement "Insurance will replace it"...Makes my head explode every time I read it or hear it.
What's your deductible?
Ever had to deal with an insurance company on a loss like this?
Do you know how much your rates are going to go up after you make a claim? I have, and basically I paid $800 for a $300 replacement unit over a 3 year period (car stereo, $0 deductible).
All of you should have an honest face to face sit down with your insurance agent and pose that scenario. Walk it through step by step as if you were actually filing a claim. Ask how long it will take to process, what all information you will need to prove what was stolen, how much your rates will go up after the claim & for how long. You won't like the results.
On topic, hopefully someone will pull this very stunt on one or more of these civil lawyers. Happened with the jackwagons that put the law on the books that anyone can condemn & seize a property if they intend to develop it. IIRC one of the judges that approved the law lost his cabin/vacation property that way.
In this scenario, I'd keep loading him up with stuff until he collapsed under the weight and was pinned to the floor. It's not kidnapping or unlawful detaining. You were helping him load up on the stuff he wanted. I guess he should have thought that through before he asked for the oak coffee table and leather sleeper sofa.
My gun would be out and covering him. However since there is no weapon visible, shooting him in most states would be hard to justify. Not advocating anything, BUT...... a good hard kick to the side of the knee should slow him down enough for the cops to get there and take charge of him.
Sounds like you need a new group of friends.....or at least 1 new friend.
Freedom doesn't come free. It is bought and paid for by the lives and blood of our men and women in uniform.
USAF Retired
NRA Life Member
In my home, I'll always assume the worst...no talking...entering my home uninvited will be considered a serious threat to me and mine...'nuff' said.
"That I cannot do."
"Give this to, uh, Clemenza. I want reliable people, people who aren't going to be carried away. After all we're not murderers in spite of what this undertaker thinks."
***********************************
Certified Glock Armorer
NRA Life Member
Array
If he has my TV and is calm and determined to leave with it... then I would let him. Now, if he calmly tried to come back for more after that, then I would assume he meant me and mine harm and that would be the end of his games. It may seem wrong that it would need to be done this way, but right or wrong, I would not want to be tied in court and lose the house that the TV was supposed to be in because a legal loophole. And no, I would never put in a HO claim on this dollar amount. You should either have a rainy day fund to cover a sudden $1500 cost, or be working on getting a rainy day fund that can cover a $1500 loss long before you go shopping for another... but that is getting off subject. This may seem like a terrible situation, but I guarantee you it is worse for the BG, in fact, if ever I DO walk in on a BG stealing my things, I sincerely hope he DOES have his hands full with a big heavy object of mine, that is in my opinion a best case scenario... if it costs me $1500 to watch someone leave that I don't have to shoot, and I know without a doubt that there is no way he can go for a weapon while he is leaving, then that is an excellent ending to an otherwise terrible scenario.
On another side note (and I don't mean for this to make me sound like I am against the castle doctrine idea, because I am definitely pro castle doctrine, in fact, I honestly wish every state had the damn law...) but why do we continue to make ourselves look terrible in regards to this relatively new law? Every time I hear someone talk about it, they always say something like, "well MY state has this law, so therefore he's a dead man..." this sounds terrible, it sounds like you are going to shoot the ******* just because you can...
atctimmy -
"As for me I live in a castle doctrine state so he gets drilled ASAP."
Why not say something to the effect of "In this scenario, I would feel the need to stop the threat, yada yada, and thankfully my actions would be backed up by my states castle doctrine... yada yada..." But instead, 98% of the time everyone always leads their statement with "my state has a castle doctrine, so i'm going to shoot and smile with my nose high in the air...". Again, I love the castle doctrine, I just think we might be inserting our feet into our mouthes when we use it to justify our scenario'd actions...
just my $.02 and something to think about.
Simply put, because I say what I mean and I mean what I say. I don't feel the need spew legal double speak to make a point.Why not say something to the effect of "In this scenario, I would feel the need to stop the threat, yada yada, and thankfully my actions would be backed up by my states castle doctrine... yada yada..." But instead, 98% of the time everyone always leads their statement with "my state has a castle doctrine, so i'm going to shoot and smile with my nose high in the air...". Again, I love the castle doctrine, I just think we might be inserting our feet into our mouthes when we use it to justify our scenario'd actions...
In Ohio he is presumed by law (and by me) to be a lethal threat just by being there. I don't need to do any calculations about lawyers or law suits I just need to concentrate on staying alive. My best bet is to act first in a swift and violent manner. With that in mind I have already determined under the protection of the law that I can shoot first and ask questions later. I intend to do just that. It is one less thing to clog up my brain at the critical moment and hopefully will allow an extra split second to help me survive the encounter. The law is a fantastic law and IMO really helps the good guys.
If, on the other hand, you want to speak lawyer speak then go right ahead. I prefer straight answers to straight questions.
"I don't know who invented Yoga and I don't know who invented pants. But I do know that I'd like to shake the hand of the man who put those two ideas together."
Array
I mean no offense, I used your quote simply because it was the most recent example i could find. And i do not mean that one shouldn't shoot because they are afraid. I only mean that when talking about the castle doctrine, we should word our comments carefully. We CCW'ers have to be conscientious of our image at all times, and I think that if we want this castle doctrine to stay and hopefully grow, we should be careful not to make it look like we want to use it as an excuse to shoot somebody. thats all =)
Not trying to say you should act any differently, just that we should describe our actions differently... but Im rambling now...
Array
I know what it is here , not Wisconsin :
1. Any person who breaks into a house that is occupied, is assumed to be a threat, or they would not have broken in while it was occupied. And, if not occupied at the time, there's still more.
2. Any citizen can use the "reasonable " force to perform a citizen's arrest of a person they have reason to believe or who they see commit a felony, up to and including deadly force in order to protect themselves from a threat of serious injury or death.
A burglary is a felony, and assuming it was an unoccupied home at the time.... the homeowner has every right to perform a citizens arrest, detain them, or to restrain them from leaving by whatever level of force is reasonably necessary. If the home was "occupied" ..... 'any' level of force is legal if the owner feels threatened with serious injury or death, and it is assumed the person means harm to the occupants if they broke in while it was occupied.
Now, if he has the TV in his hands... he would be advised to set it down right where it was and he's under arrest.... and I will be standing between him and any exits... so charging at me may be deemed an attack to which I may need to protect myself. Second, I bet he'll be laying on the floor waiting for the Police to arrive. If he attempts to escape and under a citizen's arrest, he can also be charged with resisting arrest, escape from custody , and similar charges as well. If he swings or fights, he's going also for assault / battery while committing a felony, etc. He can start racking up more charges and never get out of prison if he wants...
Many burglars are armed these days, so I would "assume" nothing..... just because I can't see it (knife, gun, etc) doesn't mean he doesn't have it.
I don't make jokes. I just watch the government and report the facts. --- Will Rogers ---
Chief Justice John Roberts : "I don't see how you can read Heller and not take away from it the notion that the Second Amendment...was extremely important to the framers in their view of what liberty meant."
Array
Shughes,
I think that with more time here you will come to realize that there are very few, if any, here that are bloodthirsty. Even so, the majority, are quite adamant about protecting and defending themselves, their families and their property. Most have at a minimum, a general knowledge of their area statutes and their application to various situations. With that in mind, it is not uncommon to mention such things as Castle Doctrine, without feeling the need to elaborate on the various nuances of self defense related to such statutes or in general. The feeling is that most are aware of those nuances and those that are not will ask questions which will result in an explanation of them. To feel the need to explain them every time one responds in a thread, for no other purpose than concern over image, either individually, or generally is a waste of space. Chances are, that those who would negatively view the lack of explanation, without proposing a question on same for clarity, would view the actions just a negatively even with an explanation.
"I do what I do." Cpl 'coach' Bowden, "Southern Comfort".
Array
Thank you, and hindsight being what it is i would have to agree with you, especially on how others may view my comments. It does not make anything I say less true, just apparent that that section of my comments was unnecessary. On further note, Though my membership here is short, and I am not a frequent poster, I have been reading posts on here for the last 2.5 years. but it only takes a few readings to know that you are right about the lack of "bloodthirsty" posters, and any member on here can tell you that. My concern lies instead with how "anti gun" people view us. I know it is a constant uphill battle that we fight to maintain and grow our gun rights, and I would just like us all to be a little more cognizant of how we could be perceived by those looking for ammunition. But again, you absolutely right that what I say and when, and how it could be perceived. so without further adieu, I do apology as this subject was only a side comment in a post unrelated. Thank you for your clarification on that matter, and I will be more careful in the future on such matters.
Array
I would simply introduce him to my two dogs, a Dob/lab mix & a Chocolate lab and see where the conversation leads.
If questioned by the local DA, I would simply explain to him that apparently my dogs haven't read the laws pertaining to home buglaries.
Thats if the punk sticks around long enough to "play" with the dogs.
If you want to make God laugh, tell him your plans.
Washington didn't use his freedom of speech to defeat the British, He shot them!
Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it whether it exists or not, diagnosing it incorrectly, and applying the wrong remedy." -- Ernest Benn
Array
Wow, glad I live in Texas. Down here in God's country you can blast the heck out of them.
If your state doesn't let you protect your property with deadly force, does it allow you to protect your property with force? If you are using force to protect the property and then it esscalates into a situation that requires deadly force well then I guess you get to use your gun. If not, make sure your first attempt to stop the theft with force a good one.
Beyond that, well I guess you kiss your stuff goodbye. Sucks for you.
Just remember that shot placement is much more important with what you carry than how big a bang you get with each trigger pull.
www.ddchl.com
Texas CHL Instructor
Texas Hunter Education Instructor
NRA Instructor
No offense was taken. I'm just trying to point out that I don't really care what the antis think. I prefer to let my yes mean yes and my no mean no. I try to speak the truth as I see it and I'll leave the lawyer speak to the lawyers.
"I don't know who invented Yoga and I don't know who invented pants. But I do know that I'd like to shake the hand of the man who put those two ideas together."
Array
As with atctimmy, I too live in a "Castle Doctrine" state. This guy is in my house for reasons of theft, or worse. I confront him, so now he knows I can identify him. He's probably on drugs and his state of mind will not be clear so he will most likely do harm to me or my wife. If I kill him in the commission of a home invasion, oh well. The law says that I can if I feel my life was threatend and most likely, a surprised burgular will do just that.
My dog however will have probably mauled him so badly, I will have to shoot and put him out of his misery. That's another story though.
Engaging him in a "conversation" about the bad of breaking into my home and stealing my stuff will not happen. I have already assumed he is there for no good reasons including attempting to injure or kill me now that he's caught. His life expectancy just went down to zero. I don't try to reason with criminals, because you cannot.
You either hate or like lawyers, they can be your ally or your worst enemy depending on what kind of litigation they do. Most of the so-called Ambulance Chasers are not in a very good light in my world. The one's you describe will fall into my extreme dislike category every time.
Oh, and you need to ask him that if he suprises some guy in his house what would he do? Probaby drop, roll up into the fetal position and beg for mercy.
Array
This will be controversial, but...it would depend what type of mood I'm in. Shooting people is generally not fun, so I like to avoid it. However, I may walk in and put two to the chest and one to the head without hesitation.
I wouldn't talk to the police and I would pay for a good lawyer no matter what state I'm in.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
