PDA

View Full Version : CA - legality of using force to defend property


Dont Tread on Me
04-27-2008, 4:01 PM
Does anybody know where California law sits on the use of force to defend your property? I'm not talking about smoking someone for keying your car, but more using the minimum amount of force required to stop them.

I'm not talking about LETHAL FORCE - just force! I'm talking about pushing them off your car etc.

bohoki
04-27-2008, 4:36 PM
you are only allowed to use lethal force if you are in fear of your life

you have no obligation to retreat though

the question about what to do about a guy with a molitov coctail coming toward your house intrigues me a bit

because i could flee the burning house if i stay i would burn to death can i shoot the sucker how close do i have to let them get? especially if he is yelling i'm gonna burn you fooker

69Mach1
04-27-2008, 4:41 PM
you are only allowed to use lethal force if you are in fear of your life

you have no obligation to retreat though

the question about what to do about a guy with a molitov coctail coming toward your house intrigues me a bit

because i could flee the burning house if i stay i would burn to death can i shoot the sucker how close do i have to let them get? especially if he is yelling i'm gonna burn you fooker

Shoot the molitov coctail.:cool:

Vin496
04-27-2008, 4:47 PM
Shoot the molitov coctail.:cool:

Light it up!!!:20:

6079Winston
04-27-2008, 4:57 PM
A friend of mine failed an interview for a local PD for stating that he would not shoot a deranged woman with a molotov coctail outside of an unoccupied industrial building at night. The proper response in the early 90's was to shoot, rather than to call in a negotiator.

Jicko
04-27-2008, 4:59 PM
Does anybody know where California law sits on the use of force to defend your property?

You cannot use "lethal" force to defend your property.

Ech0Sierra
04-27-2008, 5:02 PM
Are less-than-lethal shotgun deployed projectiles (beanbags) lethal?

69Mach1
04-27-2008, 5:05 PM
At point blank ranges, they can be deadly. Doesn't CA have a "castle doctrine"?

Jicko
04-27-2008, 5:12 PM
Defending your property means someone trying to steal your car, or someone trying to steal your UPS delivery..... not someone trying to force their way into your house while you are in there, right?

I think if someone trying to force their way into your house, use of lethal force is certainly justified... since I think you certainly should be in fear of your life....

On the situation with the molotov cocktail attacker, i think he definitely have a lethal weapon and is coming towards you.... so... use ur common sense....

bohoki
04-27-2008, 5:29 PM
Shoot the molitov coctail.:cool:

and every time i ask that question i get that answer

what if you miss then they hurl

center of mass is so much easier a target than a swinging flaming vodka bottle

Dont Tread on Me
04-27-2008, 5:31 PM
The Power of Google!

http://www.justia.com/criminal/docs/calcrim/3400/3476.html

3476. Right to Defend Real or Personal Property

The owner [or possessor] of (real/ [or] personal) property may use reasonable force to protect that property from imminent harm. [A person may also use reasonable force to protect the property of a (family member/guest/master/servant/ward) from immediate harm.]

Reasonable force means the amount of force that a reasonable person in the same situation would believe is necessary to protect the property from imminent harm.

When deciding whether the defendant used reasonable force, consider all the circumstances as they were known to and appeared to the defendant and consider what a reasonable person in a similar situation with similar knowledge would have believed. If the defendant's beliefs were reasonable, the danger does not need to have actually existed.

The People have the burden of proving beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant used more force than was reasonable to protect property from imminent harm. If the People have not met this burden, you must find the defendant not guilty of <insert crime>.

Bench Notes

Instructional Duty

The court has a sua sponte duty to instruct on a defense when the defendant is relying on the defense, or if there is substantial evidence supporting the defense and it is not inconsistent with the defendant's theory of the case. (See People v. Breverman (1998) 19 Cal.4th 142, 156 [77 Cal.Rptr.2d 870, 960 P.2d 1094] [addressing court's sua sponte instructional duties on defenses and lesser included offenses generally].)

Related Instructions

CALCRIM No. 3475, Right to Eject Trespasser From Real Property.

CALCRIM No. 3477, Presumption That Resident Was Reasonably Afraid of Death or Great Bodily Injury.

CALCRIM No. 506, Justifiable Homicide: Defending Against Harm to Person Within Home or on Property.

AngelDecoys
04-27-2008, 5:33 PM
You cannot use "lethal" force to defend your property.

+1

you are only allowed to use lethal force if you are in fear of your life

All depends. There are many factors. Intent, person capable of carrying out threat, immediacy/imminent danger, disparity of force, etc. If one puts themselves into the position by going outside to solely protect property, it might come back at you, "If you were in fear of your life, why did you put it at risk? Why didn’t you back up?" You see where a DA might go with that? No longer can be construed simply as self-defense.

To keep the issue back to defending 'property'

In general, you get to use a 'reasonable' level of force to stop someone from destroying property. If they are unarmed, you may use an appropriate amount of physical force to restrain them as long as they resist. Once they stop resisting, you make the citizens arrest and call the cops. You don't get to keep on beating them until they are unconscious.

I see a lot of the following stated or similar things at this website. (You go outside, point a gun, and say ‘Stop! Stop or I’ll shoot! I’m making a citizen’s arrest. They don’t stop or go away. I SHOOT!" followed by "It’s my property, my manhood demands I shoot to kill the vermin").

If you are not LE, Batman, or the Punisher YOU MAY NOT SHOOT if they do not stop, or go away, or have no weapon. You may not use lethal force to defend property. Of course, if that scenario changes and they come at you with a weapon, things change.

ETA - Looks like you posted at the same time... A simple mantra to follow is: "If its not worth dying over, its not worth fighting over."

M. Sage
04-27-2008, 5:37 PM
you are only allowed to use lethal force if you are in fear of your life

you have no obligation to retreat though

the question about what to do about a guy with a molitov coctail coming toward your house intrigues me a bit

because i could flee the burning house if i stay i would burn to death can i shoot the sucker how close do i have to let them get? especially if he is yelling i'm gonna burn you fooker

Shooting to stop someone from lighting fire to an occupied building is considered legal according to Machtinger's book (I have to get the 2008 edition), it was specifically mentioned (specifically a house), but I can't recall the page number or case/law cite for it.

Wulf
04-27-2008, 6:01 PM
You cannot use "lethal" force to defend your property.

Which makes this state's CCW policy all the more ridiculous, because even the counties that issue permits with reasonable frequency, will not issue if you state your need as "to defend my life", but will issue if you imply that you carry lots of money or jewels or what have you.

bwiese
04-27-2008, 6:54 PM
Does anybody know where California law sits on the use of force to defend your property? I'm not talking about smoking someone for keying your car, but more using the minimum amount of force required to stop them.

I'm not talking about LETHAL FORCE - just force! I'm talking about pushing them off your car etc.

Geez, easy recipe for going to jail for a long time and losing gun rights.

If you can only show a threat to property, you can't use force, and you should not display a weapon. Force (lethal/otherwise) is only if you're in direct fear of life/limb of yourself or others.

Liberty1
04-27-2008, 7:21 PM
Geez, easy recipe for going to jail for a long time and losing gun rights.

If you can only show a threat to property, you can't use force, and you should not display a weapon. Force (lethal/otherwise) is only if you're in direct fear of life/limb of yourself or others.

Sure you can Bill you just need to know how to word it. A private person may arrest another for any public offense and you may use all reasonable force to accomplish that lawful task. One may even carry a loaded open firearm when doing so. Now pointing it or pulling the trigger is a different question but IMO at the low ready or holstered would be ok if you were otherwise lawful.

Avoiding conflict should always be formost on our minds but if that is unavoidable couch your actions as a private persons arrest provided the other person actually was about to (attempted ______) or did commit a crime.

Jicko
04-27-2008, 7:40 PM
Which makes this state's CCW policy all the more ridiculous, because even the counties that issue permits with reasonable frequency, will not issue if you state your need as "to defend my life", but will issue if you imply that you carry lots of money or jewels or what have you.

Carrying a LOT of money or jeweleries make you a potential victim of violent crime.

If they do not believe that you are likely to be a potential victim of a violent crime, therefore, you will not need to "defend your life"... hence, no need for CCW. This make "defend your life" not a justifable cause. (to them....*sigh*)

Wulf
04-27-2008, 7:49 PM
Potato Potatoe.

If your life is at risk cause of your close association with valuables you get a permit, if your life is at stake cause you cant afford to live in a better neighborhood you're screwed. Sounds to me like the variable is property not risk.

savageevo
04-27-2008, 8:18 PM
Okay scenario one. You are sitting at home hatching tv. You hear a break or your alarm go off on your car. You arm yourself and put your pistol on your side holster. You go outside your front house to investigate. There is a person in your car possibly another person in there car. they both come out towards you. what do you do? a. they walk towards you with a screwdriver in one hand. b. they walk towards you (Meaning two bigger guys). with nothing in your hand but you can tell two bigger guys, and what pops in your head they may be using your head for a soccer ball. Either way you fear for your life. What is justified in protecting your property or in the scenario above your life. Can we then pull out our sidearm. And if I do, where is the line on brandishing. Sorry for the out of my head scenario. thanks.

Dont Tread on Me
04-27-2008, 8:21 PM
Geez, easy recipe for going to jail for a long time and losing gun rights.

If you can only show a threat to property, you can't use force, and you should not display a weapon. Force (lethal/otherwise) is only if you're in direct fear of life/limb of yourself or others.

It looks like we can use force. One can also use force on trespassers too if this link is correct.

http://www.justia.com/criminal/docs/calcrim/3400/3476.html

What I'm talking about here is at the level of pushing a turd off your car if he is damaging it. No weapon required, unless he then goes on to threaten your life.

Richie Rich
04-27-2008, 8:21 PM
So, in other words, this scenario is OK in the eyes of the law.

Middle of the night, you awake to a goblin breaking into something on your property. Outbuilding, garage, car, doghouse, something other then your dwelling (but within your property lines).

You grab firearm and go out to investigate/confront goblin. You politely ask goblin to stop what he is doing. Persuaded by the presence of your boom stick, goblin complies and prones out on the ground at your insistance. LEO arrives on scene and takes goblin away. LEO pats you on back and gives you an atta boy for defending your property with a firearm, the same way he would if he was in your shoes.

Or does the last sentence go this way?

LEO arrives on scene, draws down on you even tho you placed your firearm on the ground and stepped away when you saw the cop car pull into your driveway. LEO tackles you, puts knee on back of your neck, grinding your face into the asphalt. You are then cuffed, read your rights and thrown into the back of the police car along with goblin. You go downtown and get to spend the evening in the local gray bar motel, you are charged with brandishing and making terroistic threats (goblin says you said you were going to shoot him).

Goblins bail is set less then yours, he gets court appointed lawyer and is out the next morning. You sit in the pokey for several days while your family hocks everything they own to raise bail and retain law firm specializing in firearms law.

A left leaning D.A, looking to make a name for him/herself, decides to make your case a personal matter. You are charged with everything they can think of. Goblin strikes a plea deal to misdemeanor tresspassing in exchange for his testimony against you. Goblin also hires lawyer for civil suit and cries to the media, claiming his civil rights were violated since he is a different color or nationallity then you. Goblin also files restraining order against you, claiming he fears retalliation. You are ordered to sell/surrender all your guns. Due to the pending criminal case against you, you lose your job. Goblins homies make it a point to drive past your house and leer at you.

Six months and $40,000 in legal fees later you are aquitted based on lack of evidence, you lose civil suit and are ordered to pay out a six figure settlement.

To add insult to injury, you are no longer able to own a firearm ever again (due to restaining order). Goblin makes it a point to drive past your house in his new Caddy with 24in rims that you paid for.

After Matt's case, nothing would surprise me in this crazy state.

AJAX22
04-27-2008, 8:33 PM
If you have good aim, you're more likely to win the civil suit ;)

AngelDecoys
04-27-2008, 8:39 PM
Okay scenario one. You are sitting at home hatching tv. You hear a break or your alarm go off on your car. You arm yourself and put your pistol on your side holster. You go outside your front house to investigate.

I'm not a big fan of scenarios in forums. Typically, one gives an answer, then lots of details follow, followed by everyone chiming in. Personally, I'd say your 1st mistake was going outside when sticking your head out the window and yelling, or from the porch with a flashlight might have announced your presence enough for someone to leave. In going outside, are you not leaving a defensible position?

There is a person in your car possibly another person in there car. they both come out towards you. what do you do? a. they walk towards you with a screwdriver in one hand. b. they walk towards you (Meaning two bigger guys). with nothing in your hand but you can tell two bigger guys, and what pops in your head they may be using your head for a soccer ball. Either way you fear for your life.....

Well, since you've gone to investigate, you've changed a 'black in white' scenario into many layers of 'grey.' 2 against 1 is clearly disparity of force, so you might be justified in shooting if it came to that. (Could you have retreated, ie run back to the house.) Even if that happens, congratulations you are alive. That's the only place in the scenario where you win.

So, now you got 2 people dead on your front lawn. 1, has a wife with 3 kids. And the other turns out to be an honor roll student at the high school. Both have surviving relatives that think you're now their meal ticket for the rest of their lives. Lets assume the DA calls it 100% justified, so no criminal action. Instead you get a couple of Civil court suits. After several years, and $100,000's in court fees, maybe the 50/50 chance that a jury won't award a portion of your future income doesn't happen. You willing to take that bet?

I'd rather wish for a 3rd or 4th safe full of guns over going outside for a car stereo, or my car, and the ensuing consequences. That's the sad reality and why I have insurance (though it would bother me to watch it happen).

"If its not worth dying over, its not worth fighting over."

Jicko
04-27-2008, 8:56 PM
Okay scenario one. You are sitting at home hatching tv. You hear a break or your alarm go off on your car. You arm yourself and put your pistol on your side holster. You go outside your front house to investigate. There is a person in your car possibly another person in there car. they both come out towards you. what do you do? a. they walk towards you with a screwdriver in one hand. b. they walk towards you (Meaning two bigger guys). with nothing in your hand but you can tell two bigger guys, and what pops in your head they may be using your head for a soccer ball. Either way you fear for your life. What is justified in protecting your property or in the scenario above your life. Can we then pull out our sidearm. And if I do, where is the line on brandishing. Sorry for the out of my head scenario. thanks.

1) we beat this horse to death.... DO NOT leave your property armed....

2) what do u do? RUN!!!

3) if you draw your gun intending to use it, then it is not brandishing..... now, whether it is justify to use lethal force... that depending on situation...

Decoligny
04-27-2008, 9:03 PM
and every time i ask that question i get that answer

what if you miss then they hurl

center of mass is so much easier a target than a swinging flaming vodka bottle

Double tap center of mass, then if the bottle didn't break when it hit the ground, a third shot at a stationary target. KABOOM:82:

BillCA
04-27-2008, 9:19 PM
Since this thread is NOT about lethal force, let's ignore that issue. The question is can you use (non) lethal force to protect your property.

If the person keys your car (vandalism) or is refusing to get off your car (10853) you can use force to take them into custody as a citizen initiated arrest. Since these are misdemeanors, you must see them commit the crime.

For simple trespass, you tell them to leave and when they refuse, you may, by law, arrest them for trespass.

In each of the above cases, your intended goal is to apprehend a misdemeanor criminal and you may use that force which "is reasonable and necessary" to make the arrest. If the other person then resists or escalates the level of force you may defend yourself appropriately.

In general, if someone steals the UPS package from your porch and you give chase, you are attempting to apprehend a thief. Likewise when someone walks away with your golf cart and clubs or your bicycle.

In general, for protecting mere property, the law does not look kindly on serious injuries inflicted upon misdemeanor offenders. Even a felony burglar who offers no resistance or flees without you property, in the eyes of the law, does not is not due serious injury.

Note:
As for the arsonist with a molotov cocktail in hand... you cannot use lethal force unless or until the person is within reasonable throwing distance to your building or property. That distance will vary - e.g. the difference between an elderly man vs. a 19 year old.

mecam
04-27-2008, 10:07 PM
Okay scenario one. You are sitting at home hatching tv. You hear a break or your alarm go off on your car. You arm yourself and put your pistol on your side holster. You go outside your front house to investigate. There is a person in your car possibly another person in there car. they both come out towards you. what do you do? a. they walk towards you with a screwdriver in one hand. b. they walk towards you (Meaning two bigger guys). with nothing in your hand but you can tell two bigger guys, and what pops in your head they may be using your head for a soccer ball. Either way you fear for your life. What is justified in protecting your property or in the scenario above your life. Can we then pull out our sidearm. And if I do, where is the line on brandishing. Sorry for the out of my head scenario. thanks.

I would do the following.

Retreat back in the house, lock the door and call the cops. If they break down the door and attacks you, then shoot.

tyrist
04-27-2008, 10:14 PM
Are less-than-lethal shotgun deployed projectiles (beanbags) lethal?

They used to be. When they were the classic flat bean bags they had a tendancy to enter the body cavity. Apparently those bean bag corner could slice right through skin and muscle. The super sock ammo used now however is less likely to penetrate and can be fired to within 5 feet without much chance of death. Also a headshot might prove leathal but would depend on placement.

NIB
04-28-2008, 2:30 AM
Deadly force is allowed in California to stop an arsonist. As mentioned the arsonist must be within threating distance with a Molotov cocktail or in the act of lighting a fire with intent to commit arson.

M. Sage
04-28-2008, 6:49 AM
Deadly force is allowed in California to stop an arsonist. As mentioned the arsonist must be within threating distance with a Molotov cocktail or in the act of lighting a fire with intent to commit arson.

... and you have to know or reasonably believe the building they're after is occupied. Shooting an arsonist over an unoccupied shed is a no-no. Shooting one who's about to light up an apartment building is a no-brainer, though.

Ballistic043
04-28-2008, 6:55 AM
If the person keys your car (vandalism) or is refusing to get off your car (10853) you can use force to take them into custody as a citizen initiated arrest. Since these are misdemeanors, you must see them commit the crime.

For simple trespass, you tell them to leave and when they refuse, you may, by law, arrest them for trespass.

In each of the above cases, your intended goal is to apprehend a misdemeanor criminal and you may use that force which "is reasonable and necessary" to make the arrest. If the other person then resists or escalates the level of force you may defend yourself appropriately.



does the above stated transcend only to "owned property"? what rights to renters have to eject someone from their rented apartment or the front door of that apartment?


scenario (Actual): i had to ask someone to leave yesterday because they were creating drama with someone else in front of my apartment door during a barbeque. that person was being incredibly beligerant and making lots of noise in general, as well as cussing and screaming. afterwards it almost gets physical. thats when i had enough and i simply told the person "you need to leave". the person retorted and said that 'since you only rent, you have no legal authority to eject me". refusing to leave, i finally had to pick up the phone and start dialing numbers

i told them if thats true, i would get OCSD to use their authority to remove them on 415(2).. and the person finally left. ...catastrophe avoided...

anyways. i am wondering what rights, if any, we as renters can utilize in ejecting unwanted persons from the premises legally. particularly involving aggressive females...

Scarecrow Repair
04-28-2008, 9:31 AM
anyways. i am wondering what rights, if any, we as renters can utilize in ejecting unwanted persons from the premises legally. particularly involving aggressive females...

As far as I know, about the only restriction on renters as opposed to owners is that if a friend wants to bring over a registered assault weapon, he has to have written permission from the actual owner. Otherwise you can eject anybody you want and defend your residence as you see fit, just as if you owned it. Well ... if the ejectee happens to be the landlord or his family, there might be repercussions of the non-legal variety :-O

The jerk was feeding you a line of bull. Heck, even landlords have to give 24 hour notice to come in unless it's an emergency (water puring under the door).

E Pluribus Unum
04-28-2008, 10:58 AM
These posts are funny.

A bunch of non-lawyers regurgitating some nonsense BS about what they heard was the law.

This is why people who know the law are regarded so poorly when confronting LEOS about it.

AngelDecoys
04-28-2008, 11:11 AM
A bunch of non-lawyers regurgitating some nonsense BS about what they heard was the law.

This is why people who know the law are regarded so poorly when confronting LEOS about it.

Yup. And other threads where people suggest shooting through doors, or shooting to 'kill' crack me up too. Amusing statements all around, but border on gross negligence. Often by people who are accidents waiting to happen, or one's who unwillingly will end spending 100,000's over a $500 stereo.

You're right though, a Batman, or Punisher attitude can be found here often.

Shenaniguns
04-28-2008, 11:52 AM
Shoot the molitov coctail.:cool:

Arson is 1 of the forcible felony's that you can use lethal force on...

Here's a good read for those who don't know the laws of C.A. gun ownership and use:
http://ag.ca.gov/firearms/forms/pdf/Cfl2007.pdf

Arson isn't specifically listed in that document but it is in my Open Carry training manual

E. Fudd
04-29-2008, 1:33 AM
It looks like we can use force. One can also use force on trespassers too if this link is correct.

http://www.justia.com/criminal/docs/calcrim/3400/3476.html

What I'm talking about here is at the level of pushing a turd off your car if he is damaging it. No weapon required, unless he then goes on to threaten your life.

But what happens if the turd is injured (or claims such) after your push (e.g. head hits the sidewalk, breaks or sprains something, claims he became impotent, : ) , etc.)?

I could see the potential for a you say/he says when LE arrives and everyone going in for questioning or worse. Or the turd coming back with a civil suit for his injuries...

Maybe better to use your verbal judo skills, command presence, etc. to scare him off?

Show him your war face and give him your best "ki-ai"...? :eek:

Or the old Steve Martin trick of first wetting your pants, then chase him around the car... :D

duenor
04-29-2008, 8:09 AM
Hold up, gentlemen.
There are many for whom their car IS their livelihood, and destruction of said car would result in loss of job, loss of home, and essential homelessness. So while most people can safely say that it is not worth fighting over a car, for some - it is. Examples are handymen, taco truck owners, construction guys, and locksmith vans. Even tougher are cases where the guy cannot afford full insurance and so only pay for liability.

It is for those cases that CA's law on property exists.

For instance, I had several gangsters sitting on my car in the driveway one night. I did not go out there armed to the teeth in full combat gear to go confront them. Rather, I called the LAPD. I'd rather file an insurance claim than to file bail or check into the emergency room.

On the other hand. When I was younger, I had a car and could not afford full insurance. I also worked a very non-tolerant job. If I failed to show in the morning, I would be fired.

So, when I saw a guy trying to break my window with his fist in his sweater, I draped a bath towel over my AR15 (the only real gun I had at the time), and went downstairs to the car park (I lived in an apt at that time). I also called the cops on the way down the stairs. The guy recognized the tip of a gun peeking out immediately. On my own part, I did my best to sound like a crazy m*****, yelling and cussing. He quickly ran away.

It is interesting to note, however, that while Alhambra police showed up quite promptly in latter case (with the AR), the LAPD -never- showed up at all even though I told them how many gangsters were there, what set they were claiming, how many males vs females, where they were, and how long they had been there.

They didn't even do a cruise-by in a cop car. NOTHING. An hour after I called it in, nearly two hours after they first started hanging out in my driveweay, the MS13 thugs left on their own.

So while cops still get a lot of respect and appreciation from me, my faith in the LAPD bears low expectations.

AngelDecoys
04-29-2008, 8:24 AM
Hold up, gentlemen.
There are many for whom their car IS their livelihood, and destruction of said car would result in loss of job, loss of home, and essential homelessness. So while most people can safely say that it is not worth fighting over a car, for some - it is. Examples are handymen, taco truck owners, construction guys, and locksmith vans. Even tougher are cases where the guy cannot afford full insurance and so only pay for liability.

It is for those cases that CA's law on property exists.

On the other hand. When I was younger, I had a car and could not afford full insurance. I also worked a very non-tolerant job. If I failed to show in the morning, I would be fired.

I think most would agree, if your livelyhood is dependent on your vehicle (work truck, electrician's truck, etc), the dynamic changes. But for those of us where insurance (property, or car) covers a temp vehicle (until the primary one can be replaced), confronting trouble isn't the wisest of choices. (Its tough to swallow pride and watch things you've worked for be destroyed and not take action). Until judges on mass throw out cases, or the legal system puts up some safeguards for home owners, its a tough road in CA.

I think i'd still stick with the philosophy "If its not worth dying over, its not worth fighting over."

BillCA
04-29-2008, 8:30 AM
These posts are funny.

A bunch of non-lawyers regurgitating some nonsense BS about what they heard was the law.

This is why people who know the law are regarded so poorly when confronting LEOS about it.
Perhaps then, you might use your expertise to point out which responses are incorrect. Or at least address the OP's post about physical force for misdemeanors.


scenario (Actual): i had to ask someone to leave yesterday because they were creating drama with someone else in front of my apartment door during a barbeque.

As a renter, you can have someone arrested for trespass if they enter your apartment, patio/balcony area without permission. But as a renter, you don't have legal rights for trespass over "common" areas used by the public or other tenants. This would include sidewalks, stairwells, landscaped areas, etc. So in your case, 415PC would be a good alternate choice to get the person removed.

BillCA
04-29-2008, 9:02 AM
... and you have to know or reasonably believe the building they're after is occupied. Shooting an arsonist over an unoccupied shed is a no-no. Shooting one who's about to light up an apartment building is a no-brainer, though.

That's not 100% true. One can take the opposite stance. You can argue that you were unable to determine if the building was unoccupied.

Someone about to light up a darkened duplex at 3 a.m. is very probably threatening lives. That same duplex at 10:30 a.m. may be empty -- or it may not be. We'll ignore the obvious -- toolsheds, doghouses and similar outbuildings.

Alternatively, one could possibly argue that arson is a felony - a felony about to be committed in your presence - and if the building is ignited, it requires a response by firefighters. And according to the firefighters, every structure fire they fight endangers their lives. Thus you are protecting the lives of firefighters. :D

StukaJr
04-29-2008, 10:01 AM
You can't use lethal force in defense of the property in California.

You can use lethal force to protect yourself or others from grievous injury or death.

So if you have undertaken a reasonable action of protecting a life, protecting a property is no longer a priority now, is it? So if you justify your own actions, wording of "protecting the property" should not even enter your lexicon at that point, apart from maybe what spurred you into action...

Rob454
04-29-2008, 7:20 PM
Are less-than-lethal shotgun deployed projectiles (beanbags) lethal?



Too bad the guy will probably sue you and win when its all said and done. I dont think you can use lethal force if someone is stealing your tools or your car. But most likely pulling out a gun, unless he is one tough mother fer he will most likely stop what he is doing.

Dont Tread on Me
04-30-2008, 6:51 AM
They didn't even do a cruise-by in a cop car. NOTHING. An hour after I called it in, nearly two hours after they first started hanging out in my driveweay, the MS13 thugs left on their own.

So while cops still get a lot of respect and appreciation from me, my faith in the LAPD bears low expectations.

Does this expose the Gov lie? Give up your guns, we will protect you. Oh yea.

You have to play the game to get the police to prioritize the call. I would suggest saying that they are openly displaying guns. That will get a response. Turns out you mistook a beer bottle in the dark for a gun. No fowl.

Ballistic043
04-30-2008, 6:58 AM
well, i would not suggest to make false, or exxagerated reports to haste them to the scene. it happens enough in the steam of things....

Dont Tread on Me
04-30-2008, 7:47 AM
well, i would not suggest to make false, or exxagerated reports to haste them to the scene. it happens enough in the steam of things....

With all the respect in the world for the individual officers out there, we have a system created by our liberal politicians that prevents the law abiding from defending their property and police departments without the resources the protect it as the politicians promised. Give me the choice between paying out my own pocket to repair damage to my car or gaming the system to get a response and what do you expect?

I really wish law enforcement was forced to publish: 911 response times, number of dropped 911 call, number of calls not responded too etc. Not to put blame on LEOs for providing a crappy service, but rather for showing the limits of the excellent and professional service they do provide.

duenor
04-30-2008, 8:42 AM
The thugs broke beer bottles on the trunk of my car, left trash all over the lawn, and threw glass into the street. they also left dents on my car where they leaned hard against the sides, as well as the girls who sat on my trunk.

there I was, suited up for bear, but doing absolutely nothing but sitting quietly on the floor against a wall in the dark becuase I knew that the govt would not have my back if I went out there all Bronson-style. I sat, waiting for the cop car that never came.

still, better than what happened in warren vs. district of columbia.

the next morning i swept up the glass, washed the car, and went to work like any other sheep of the nation.

oh well. in retrospect, i am still glad that i kept my cool and did not do anything stupid.

BOHICA

Spawn_X
04-30-2008, 9:24 AM
the next morning i swept up the glass, washed the car, and went to work like any other sheep of the nation.BOHICA

sucks, huh.

I've had 3 burglaries into my stuff in this "nice" neighborhood I moved into 2 years ago, bunch of tweakers probably, stole $2000 worth of stuff in all 3 times. But god knows if I catch them in the act and beat them with a bat, I'll be in a lotta trouble

:confused: :mad:

Phugedaboudet
04-30-2008, 4:06 PM
How about starting with a baseball bat/wooden mop handle/leftover pipe from plumbing project?

with backup from the 18" khukri hand-forged from a truck leaf spring?

Always helps to have your significant other providing ranged fire support with a scoped rifle in case your backyard burgler had more nefarious plans in mind.

This way you have options to provide the appropriate level of @ss kicking. Now if you see the perp has a gun, well-HE's the one who escalated a vandalims/trespassing issue into a gunfight...

Phugedaboudet
04-30-2008, 4:14 PM
and it was on the Internet so it must be true! :)

So you call the police and they're not there in 15 minutes...call back and tell them not to worry, you've got your own gun and will take care of the situation yourself...

Cops'll be there before you get a chance to hang up the phone. Gotta protect the MS13/V.S.T./X3/Surenos or their older members in City Council/Community Leadership/Mayor's Office might get upset.


Does this expose the Gov lie? Give up your guns, we will protect you. Oh yea.

You have to play the game to get the police to prioritize the call. I would suggest saying that they are openly displaying guns. That will get a response. Turns out you mistook a beer bottle in the dark for a gun. No fowl.

M. Sage
04-30-2008, 6:52 PM
That's not 100% true. One can take the opposite stance. You can argue that you were unable to determine if the building was unoccupied.

Someone about to light up a darkened duplex at 3 a.m. is very probably threatening lives. That same duplex at 10:30 a.m. may be empty -- or it may not be. We'll ignore the obvious -- toolsheds, doghouses and similar outbuildings.

Alternatively, one could possibly argue that arson is a felony - a felony about to be committed in your presence - and if the building is ignited, it requires a response by firefighters. And according to the firefighters, every structure fire they fight endangers their lives. Thus you are protecting the lives of firefighters. :D

Good point, though I wouldn't want to try arguing the bottom one. Firefighters who respond to a building that's obviously unoccupied don't usually take any real risks, they'll contain it and let it burn out if it comes to that. I can think of one instance before I moved here from Michigan, a grain elevator caught fire. The FD got all the workers clear (who were trying to contain the fire), moved back and watched it burn to the ground. The grain elevator employees were pretty mad. "They could have saved it! Were will we work now?!"

duenor
05-01-2008, 9:57 AM
I know a guy on another board who did exactly that - called it in and said that he thinks he just shot and killed the invader.

Cops showed up right away. But see, LAPD is a tad.... well... tense...