[Sticks]

Rather than derail one of several threads on the subject, I've opted to start one specifically on this issue.

Rules for discussion on this thread

1. If you are going to comment on legalities of actions - Reference your state laws. Each state is different on the legalities of the actions discussed here. What is legal for someone in TX, may not be for someone in IL. When posting state law, please edit out extraneous info to keep the post short - READ - If the subsection, annotation, or case law does not apply to the discussion, delete it.

2. Upon request, post a link to your info

3. Remember what you post may come back to haunt you.

4. No personal attacks. The posted comments are the posters individual opinion on the subject at hand. If they are acting within their state law, then they are not being irresponsible, stupid, or giving gun owners/CC holders a bad name.​

This comes up every time there is a discussion over the defense of property regardless of at home (outside the house/dwelling, I.E. garage, vehicle, shed or other outbuilding) or away.

Use of a firearm against someone in defense of property.

The BGs read forums like this, and as so called studies conclude (I'm paraphrasing from memory here) "BGs fear an armed homeowner thus will likely not enter the house". "BGs in Shall Issue States or Firearm Friendly Areas worry about a potential target being armed so they change their tactics or target selection."

A large number of members have stated that they would sooner let a BG take their wallet, vehicle if mugged/carjacked, vehicle from their driveway/garage, or the contents of the car and/or garage, rather than take any measures (deploying firearm or leaving "safety of the house") to stop them, other than calling 911 to file a report and let the insurance cover it.

So what have we taught the BGs?

1. Use just enough intimidation to give them your keys/wallet, but do not make them too much in fear for their life.

2. Don't break into the house, but take the vehicle, contents therein, or the contents of the garage/outbuilding.

I personally refuse to willingly be a victim under any circumstances. A BG is not going to get my money, wallet, keys or vehicle. If I leave my house to investigate suspicious events (motion lights, lights in the garage, someone in the parking area - behind house next to garage) and happen upon someone stealing, or attempting to steal, I will take the appropriate legal actions to stop them. If they drop what they have and take off running, I most likely will not pursue. If they take off with items, I may pursue, depends on what it is. If they resist, it is their choice how far that goes.

Having said that, there is Colorado law empowering me to detain them with physical force (NOT DEADLY). Resistance on their part may escalate that to a SD (I will need to verify).

IIRC There is law allowing Deadly Force to stop a Felony and or escape of person committing Felony but I am having difficulty locating it again, and will be making every effort to verify that "IIRC"

Now I am not going to go into detail of my actions on a myriad of scenarios other than to state that I will have called 911 as soon as I have determined that a crime is occurring.

There will have to be very extreme circumstances going on for me to intervene on the behalf of someone other than family. It's not my problem until it becomes my problem. Some of you lean more towards the "Sheepdog" mentality so lets keep this topic on you and yours (household family) alone.

In Colorado, the law states on use of force in defense of property (source Legal Resources);

18-1-706. Use of physical force in defense of property.

A person is justified in using reasonable and appropriate physical force upon another person when and to the extent that he reasonably believes it necessary to prevent what he reasonably believes to be an attempt by the other person to commit theft, criminal mischief, or criminal tampering involving property, but he may use deadly physical force under these circumstances only in defense of himself or another as described in section 18-1-704.

ANNOTATION

One cannot instantly kill in defense of property. While a man may use all reasonable and necessary force to defend his real and personal estate, of which he is in the actual possession, against another who comes to dispossess him without right, he cannot instantly carry his defense to the extent of killing the aggressor. If no other way is open, he must yield and get himself righted by resort to the law. Bush v. People, 10 Colo. 566, 16 P. 290 (1887) (decided under G. S. § 721).

Now the above highlighted item is vague, and the situation may change depending on the BGs actions. Yet another I will need to verify.

However, under Use of force in defense of a person;

18-1-704. Use of physical force in defense of a person.

(2) Deadly physical force may be used only if a person reasonably believes a lesser degree of force is inadequate and:

(b) The other person is using or reasonably appears about to use physical force against an occupant of a dwelling or business establishment while committing or attempting to commit burglary as defined in sections 18-4-202 to 18-4-204; or

(c) The other person is committing or reasonably appears about to commit ... robbery as defined in section 18-4-301...

ANNOTATION

The defendant, if he did not provoke the assault, is not obliged to retreat or flee to save his life, but may stand his ground, and even, in some circumstances, pursue his assailant until the latter has been disarmed or disabled from carrying into effect his unlawful purpose, and this right of the defendant goes even to the extent, if necessary, of taking human life. Boykin v. People, 22 Colo. 496, 45 P. 419 (1896); Enyart v. People, 67 Colo. 434, 180 P. 722 (1919).

Right to kill in self-defense is not limited to cases where assailant intends to commit a felony. Ritchey v. People, 23 Colo. 314, 47 P. 272 (1896).

Instruction on use of deadly physical force is to be used only if the victim died. Because no victim died, instruction that defendant was justified in use of physical force if he used that degree of force which he reasonably believed to be necessary was proper. People v. Silva, 987 P.2d 909 (Colo. App. 1999).

18-4-202. First degree burglary.

(1) A person commits first degree burglary if the person knowingly enters unlawfully, or remains unlawfully after a lawful or unlawful entry, in a building or occupied structure with intent to commit therein a crime, other than trespass as defined in this article, against another person or property, and if in effecting entry or while in the building or occupied structure or in immediate flight therefrom, the person or another participant in the crime assaults or menaces any person, or the person or another participant is armed with explosives or a deadly weapon.

(2) First degree burglary is a class 3 felony.

ANNOTATION

Distinguished from felony menacing. It is possible to commit a first degree burglary without also perpetrating felony menacing. The merger doctrine does not apply because there is no requirement in this section that a victim be placed in fear of imminent serious bodily injury by a deadly weapon as there is in the felony menacing statute. People v. Sisneros, 44 Colo. App. 65, 606 P.2d 1317 (1980).

There is no requirement that victim be placed in fear of imminent serious bodily injury by a deadly weapon under the first degree burglary statute. People v. Montanez, 944 P.2d 529 (Colo. App. 1996).

Where the only evidence concerning the presence of deadly weapons at the time of the robbery was that defendant was carrying stolen items, including weapons, in a canvas sack during commission of the burglary, such evidence was insufficient to prove that defendant was armed with a deadly weapon, a requisite element of burglary. People v. Moore, 841 P.2d 320 (Colo. App. 1992).

Second degree burglary becomes first degree burglary when the perpetrator increases the risk of deadly or bodily harm to an occupant or other person present by possessing a deadly weapon such that he knowingly places or attempts to place such person in fear of serious bodily injury or intends to and does cause serious bodily injury to any person. People v. Moore, 841 P.2d 320 (Colo. App. 1992).

If the defendant steals a deadly weapon and thereby becomes armed with a deadly weapon, the burglary is elevated to first degree, and there is no requirement that the prosecution show that the defendant assaulted or menaced anyone with the deadly weapon. People v. Loomis, 857 P.2d 478 (Colo. App. 1992).

The defendant is considered "armed" with a deadly weapon if the weapon is easily accessible and readily available for use by the defendant. The court need not consider the defendant's willingness or present ability to use the deadly weapon. People v. Loomis, 857 P.2d 478 (Colo. App. 1992).

18-4-204. Third degree burglary.

(1) A person commits third degree burglary if with intent to commit a crime he enters or breaks into any vault, safe, cash register, coin vending machine, product dispenser, money depository, safety deposit box, coin telephone, coin box, or other apparatus or equipment whether or not coin operated.

(2) Third degree burglary is a class 5 felony, but it is a class 4 felony if it is a burglary, the objective of which is the theft of a controlled substance, as defined in section 12-22-303 (7), C.R.S., lawfully kept in or upon the property burglarized.

18-4-301. Robbery.

(1) A person who knowingly takes anything of value from the person or presence of another by the use of force, threats, or intimidation commits robbery.

(2) Robbery is a class 4 felony.

I have deleted easily 700 lines of content from the above copied/pasted laws after reading them. They did not apply to the discussion by my interpretation.

Again, I will be verifying my interpenetration of these laws, and checking into the other items. I am going to try to arrange a meeting with the local DA for discussion on this.

IMO our judicial system sucks. Criminals know that they can just about get away with anything with minimal risk from the courts. The only way they start to fear is when the victim fights back...violently. I am not, by any stretch of the imagination, insinuating or promoting vigilantism! Let the LEOs hunt the BGs. I am only acting on stopping my victimization at the time of occurrence, within the guidelines of the law. If I break the law, then I fully expect to receive my due punishment.

 

[jhh3rd]

Ok. Do you have a family at home? If so, is there another "sheepdog" willing to step up for your family IF you are placed in our judicial system (which you opine sucks) while you receive due punishment if you use violent force defending your property? Whether you might be detained for hours, days, etc.?

 

[Ramen]

My bar-be-que grill costs me $299, its a nice gas grill. If I shoot someone because they're stealing my grill that means I've priced human life at $299. To me, that means my life is only worth $299. I feel I'm worth more than that, my life is worth a life. Because it's worth that much I would only shoot if they where trying to steal my life or the life of another.

 

[Sticks]

OK, you first to posters, please re-read my OP. NOWHERE in that post did I say I was going to shoot or kill someone in defense of my property, only STOP them from taking it.

 

[DBRideout]

If you allow them to take the BBQ today, they WILL be back for more later. It's just human nature.

I completely agree with Sticks.

 

[ImChad]

I had someone steal from my jeep. If I'd have caught him in the act, I wouldn't confront him, I would call the police. The crap in my jeep isn't worth drawing my sidearm for. My state disagrees, I'm allowed to stop a personal crime with the use of my sidearm. yeay Indiana.

Inside my home is a different story. if I caught someone in my home I would want to stop the threat as quickly as possible. we're not talking about my TV, computer, or whatever. We're talking about my most valuable possession in my home, my family being protected from theft, rape, abuse, murder and so on.

To be honest, I read the post twice and I feel like some of your belief system may be "Lets not be victims" and I agree. But I'm not a victim. the BG's don't have some secret network. It's not GG and BG's with cowboys and Indians. At the end of the day we're all people who have made a choice and decision.


if I get stolen from and watch it happen while on the phone with the police the BG didn't "win" and I didn't "lose" I made a choice to preserve life just as the bg made a choice to steal from me.

I find the good guy bad guy mentality to be disturbing to be honest. Not insulting anyone, it just bothers me that poeple can see it in black and white so easily.

 

[DBRideout]

If you don't stop them outside, they will be coming in, when you don't expect it if they have anything to say about it...

 

[BersaUC45]

I recommend you read Massad Ayoob's In the Gravest Extreme if you haven't already. The author writes about when you can/can't and should/shouldn't use deadly force. Personally, I will let the BG take my vehicle, loot my shed, or whatever, because I have insurance to cover that and a local PD to give chase.
And also when you give chase after a BG, you may catch him and hold him for police and be a hero. But if he turns and fights after you have chased him, and you shoot him, the police and court system may see you as the instigator/perpetrator and arrest you for murder. Once the BG starts to run he has stopped committing a felony and you no longer can use deadly force.

 

[DBRideout]

I find the good guy bad guy mentality to be disturbing to be honest. Not insulting anyone, it just bothers me that poeple can see it in black and white so easily.

Like John Wayne said in the movie The Alamo:
"There's right and theres wrong, you gotta do one or the other. You do the one and your living, you do the other and you may be walking around but your dead as a beaver hat"

 

[ScubaDuba]

In NC, if you follow one personal rule, you will always be legal. Don't draw your firearm unless you are threatened with deadly force. Stuff can be replaced, Husbands and Daddys can't.

 

[Hopyard]

Sticks correctly wrote: |" So what have we taught the BGs?
1. Use just enough intimidation to give them your keys/wallet, but do not make them too much in fear for their life.
2. Don't break into the house, but take the vehicle, contents therein, or the contents of the garage/outbuilding."

Of course most of the BGs have learned that either from cell mates in jail or from their buddies on the street.

The ones who didn't learn that are dangerous as heck.

 

[Treo]

The BGs read forums like this

Do you have any data to back this up?

 

[BRTCP88]

Like John Wayne said in the movie The Alamo:
"There's right and theres wrong, you gotta do one or the other. You do the one and your living, you do the other and you may be walking around but your dead as a beaver hat"

I agree 100%.

 

[JerryM]

My bar-be-que grill costs me $299, its a nice gas grill. If I shoot someone because they're stealing my grill that means I've priced human life at $299. To me, that means my life is only worth $299. I feel I'm worth more than that, my life is worth a life. Because it's worth that much I would only shoot if they where trying to steal my life or the life of another.

Certainly a life is worth more, but is that the real issue?

We fight wars and millions die for our freedoms; one of which is the right to own property. And no a human life is not worth more than that right.

If we compare the worth of a life with the cost of any property then we should just let the thief take whatever he wants. Even if a thief robs a bank why should he be shot?

Is one's life worth more than the virginity of a daughter, or the beating by a thug of one's wife?

So I have to take issue with the basic premise that we must consider the worth of a human life in comparison with monetary worths.

But the law is the law, and I will always try my best to obey it.

Regards,
Jerry

 

[Keltyke]

In SC, you may only draw your weapon if: "you must actually believe you are in imminent danger of loss of life or serious bodily injury or actually be in such danger; if you believe you are in such danger, you must use deadly force only if a reasonable or prudent man of ordinary firmness and courage would have believed himself to be in such danger,..."

Now, there's a LOT of conjecture in that statement and hardly one absolute.

Several SC Sheriffs have also determined (tacitly) that "if someone enters your house, you may assume they are there to harm you, not to just rob you - and you may act accordingly."

SC also has Castle Doctrine that extends to outbuildings and autos.
"PROTECTION OF PERSONS AND PROPERTY ACT
The stated intent of the legislation is to codify the common law castle doctrine, which recognizes that a person’s home is his castle, and to extend the doctrine to include an occupied vehicle and the person’s place of business. This bill authorizes the lawful use of deadly force under certain circumstances against an intruder or attacker in a person’s dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle. The bill provides that there is no duty to retreat if..."

I may shoot someone stealing my son's baseball bat from the garage if he holds it in his hand and takes a step towards me. If he's in my house, well...I'll know what to do then, too.

The first law is the kicker - do I feel in imminent danger...?

 

[Janq]

Do you have any data to back this up?

I was wondering the exact same thing.

Because if there is concern for what is posted here then why would those same BGs with lots of time and interest to 'study' not simply go to Officer.com, PoliceOne.com and state/local police forums such as MassCops.com...all being open to the public to read & review as well as even participate amongst?

That is what I'd do.

As to civilians the BGs who would spend time reading a forum like this would also know by now to reference the very often mentioned here and everywhere DoJ Bureau of Statistics website which also is freely accessible.
There they would find and learn that less than 3% of the nations non-police citizens are licensed to keep/carry a firearm.
They would also learn from the above police sites that each state has it's own laws, as noted by the OP, and thus there are various restrictions and even in some states public listing of homeowners who have such licenses and/or how to FOIA request a list of said persons.

All of this and much much more is public information available to most any person with access to a computer and internet service, as at most any public library or prison computer lab.

Concern that BGs might be reading this forum and thus being taught by us our own 'tactics' is IMHO weak.
Yeah there is a possibility for as much but on the balance such a concern is mitigated by the very many Bgs who don't read, can't hardly read never mind comprehend and very much by the numbers of GG civilians who read these forums and walk away smarter, wiser and overall for the better including safer.

- Janq

P.S. - If I were a BG smart enough to read, review and research tactics at sites like this...I would also be smart enough to know, if not learn quickly, that is an inefficient use of time.
A more efficient use of time would be to read sites that teach how to electronically break into corporate systems so as to sponge money from those groups and score big returns with a minimum of personal risk. Such sites do exist as well with forums.
Or I'd be such a smart criminal mastermind that I'd not be even thinking about nickle & dime scores knocking over Ma & Pa Home-Owner for their flat screen TVs and savings bonds as 'hidden' in the sock drawer.

 

[farronwolf]

Do bad guys read forums like this, I don't know if they do or not. If they do the premise that the OP makes is probably correct. If they don't, real live teaches the BG the same thing that he would learn if he read these types of forums.

If the BG goes and demands money, keys, whatever from someone and that person hands it over says don't hurt me and waits to call the police after the BG leaves, it is pretty likely that the BG is going to try it again, and again, and again, and eventually he will either get caught, someone will stand up to him, or get lucky and live off of other people hard work.

What is a life worth and what are you allowed to do if someone is holding you up or stealing your BBQ grill? Each state has its own laws that tells you what is legal and what a life is worth. Whether or not you agree with that is up to you. If you choose to let them take the wallet or grill or car or whatever is your call. After you make the call then it depends on what the state law is, and whether or not there will be any reprecussions from it.

As far as the book in the In Gravest Extreme, I have never read it, I am sure it is probably a good read and might get around to it one day, but just because Ayoob thinks or says you should or shouldn't act in a certain way does not mean that is what I have or need to do. Yes he is considered an expert in his field and has been called to testify in cases or whatever. But I certainly think that when writing his book, and offering it up as a teaching tool, or in his classes, he takes every precaution to cover his arse. If he had written the book based on Texas law and told folks that it was fine to go out at night and shoot someone for criminal mischief, he would probably have a couple of results. Not too many books being sold and someone would probably sue him for selling advice that landed them in jail.

Will I stand by and let someone take my stuff, or willingly hand it over to them, probably not. It is mine, if they want something similar they need to get a job, and get stuff themselves. Is my stuff, no matter what it's worth, more valuable than their life, yep. They are the ones putting a lesser value on their life by engaging in activities that could get them placed in jail, hurt or dead. Again, each state has their own set of rules that determine what a life is worth. If a criminal is smart they will pick a state that places a very high value on their life. Texas is not one of them, and allows me to a wide range of options in protecting both my family and my property. God I love Texas. :wave:

 

[hengst]

Sticks
Just wanted to say that you put together a really good summation of Colorado laws. And I agree 100% with your posted views.
And if any BG's are reading this forum then they will know that it is wise NOT to steal from either of us.

 

[DBRideout]

To assume the BG's are NOT reading this is equally unprovable. I think there is a little picking the fly poop out of the pepper going on here...

 

[tiwee]

Tactically, going outside in the dark creates opportunities for your enemies.
I am talking about when something unusual is underway outside at night. We come and go at night all the time. We also sit outside at night when the weather is nice. The 13th and 14th of this month, we will be outside at 0-dark thirty to watch the meteor shower. Back to the tactics.


To see the possibilities, go outside tonight after dark and conceal yourself as if you were protecting your 'pardner' in crime. Let's say your 'pardner' is going to steal your car or clean out your shed. Once concealed, call your spouse or friend to exit the house and approach your vehicle, shed, etc. Decide who will win the gun fight. You(hidden and motionless) or your friend(moving with the house or streetlight or moon or city glow as a backdrop). Or who will get the drop on whom.

For me, it is not about them stealing my property. It is about staying safe so I can protect the wife and any others in the house. In our particular situation, once I am out of commission, the rest are at risk.

By the way, my insurance has a deductible. I think I am out $1000, before the insurance starts paying. The truck and my kids car do not have comprehensive coverage. Basically, anything taken from outside our place is a total loss. Still, I am not going outside on the bad guys terms in the dark.