Deadly force gets a liberal interpretation here when dealing with burglars. Check out the gun in the video.
County Dealing With Dozens Of Break-Ins Within 3 Weeks | NBC 4i
Printable View
Deadly force gets a liberal interpretation here when dealing with burglars. Check out the gun in the video.
County Dealing With Dozens Of Break-Ins Within 3 Weeks | NBC 4i
This makes a point I cite many time here on DC . I'll bet the citizen in the video isn't a poster here, and probably doesn't practice with dry fire drills and weekly range sessions. I'll bet he couldn't pick Mas Ayoob out of a two-man line up with the other person being Santa Claus, yet here he is defending himself and his property with a firearm.
Madmac, i have to agree with you. I have a co-worker here in WI. That just got his application approved for ccw. We get into coversations about exactly what you stated. His "trainning" for his ccp... Hunters safety course..... i am steadily talking to my friends and others to read the books to join forums, good information on what materials, training programs, list goes on.... and you know what the majority tells me... they already had their training. My biggest fear in WI are those people who think hunter safety is where it should stop.... No leagal information on when to shoot, escalation of force, use of deadly force, nothing....... but now they have a gun and think they will be with-in law if they use it....
I am not saying it's necessarily a bad thing being your average Joe Sixpack gun owner and little or no training. That said, I am in full-fledged support of the list above that I highlighted. Knowing when you can use your firearm is, IMHO, far more important than all the quick-draw, hand-to-hand courses you can take.Quote:
Originally Posted by jerp
Living in the country as I do, the person or persons stealing from me will know I have a firearm when they hear the first very loud bang. After that it's up to them what happens. This might be a case where the 3S rule would apply.
Using a firearm to protect property?... Catch bad guys? Really?
After watching the video, those would seem to be the conclusions.Quote:
Originally Posted by Secret Spuk
Name the "gun" he's got... what a .25?Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike1956
In some states (Texas for one) it is legal to protect private property using deadly force. Though I have no personal experience with the practice, I have no problem with the idea. I cannot abide people who believe that for which I have worked hard is theirs for the taking.
Ohio law does not allow one to escalate to deadly force in order to protect property. This story, however would make it seem as though the police and prosecutors at some point allow some discretion in the interpretation of that law. Not a complaint, mind you, but merely an example of no law being absolute, or its interpretation black-and-white.
Sometimes one has to put one's foot down--by whatever means it takes.
One certainly cannot protect property here in FL (unlike TX), but when inspecting for a possible loss of property, one may be forced to defend one's life from a dirtbag who doesn't want inspectors around while he's 'working'...too bad!:brutal7:
Georgia, too, sort of. See b) belowQuote:
Originally Posted by jamesmrj
From Welcome to GeorgiaPacking.org
O.C.G.A. § 16-3-24
Use of force in defense of property other than a habitation
(a) A person is justified in threatening or using force against another when and to the extent that he reasonably believes that such threat or force is necessary to prevent or terminate such other's trespass on or other tortious or criminal interference with real property other than a habitation or personal property:
(1) Lawfully in his possession;
(2) Lawfully in the possession of a member of his immediate family; or
(3) Belonging to a person whose property he has a legal duty to protect.
(b) The use of force which is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm to prevent trespass on or other tortious or criminal interference with real property other than a habitation or personal property is not justified unless the person using such force reasonably believes that it is necessary to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.
Appears that the catch here is your state definition of "forcible felony." In FL it's rather broad.Quote:
Originally Posted by high pockets
This puts interpretation of the law at the caprice of those in power instead of a grand jury or trial jury. The law should be changed to protect the citizen; and the DA/LE should need overwhelming and compelling reasons to prosecute, not the other way around.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike1956