Protecting your Property

[Mad Jax]

If you are investigating a possible threat on your property is it legal to have your firearm in hand? I've read threads stating if you have a handgun it should be holstered, but most occurances take place late at night when in your PJ's. What if you defend your home with a rifle? Don't read to far into the question, I am fully aware you must be in immediate danger or in a life threatening situation to engage a trespasser with deadly force. Just wondering what the state considers legal and within your rights as far as checking a possible threat with a firearm on your person and on your property?

[Mad Jax]

Outside the house?

[safewaysecurity]

If you got a fence you are in the clear.

[Mad Jax]

Back fence, no front fence. Back in the day I would think nothing of flying out the front door or side yard in my boxers with firearm in hand tucked slightly back ( not waving it around like some idiot) to check out a situation. If I were to be checking my property that has a public view, front of the house or vehicles, would I be violating a CPC of some nature if a LEO drove by? I'm pretty sure one would stop if they saw an armed person in their underwear with a flashlight.

[Beelzy]

Could be seen as "Brandishing".......Not Cool.

Cops are supposed to keep their firearms in holsters, and not to "Break Leather" until a series of escalations occur. The same thing applies to Joe Homeowner IMHO.

[Mad Jax]

Point taken. How about a rifle or shotgun?

[alex00]

Don't take this the wrong way, since we are all adults, and will do whatever makes us comfortable. Despite some legal exemptions to carrying a loaded firearm while affecting an arrest, or for personal protection it's still very murky water. My advice would be, that if there is a threat to your property, you call 911 while arming yourself, and stay in a defensible position inside your house. You are afforded some protection while inside your home, as someone breaking and entering is presumed to be there to harm you. No such protection exists when you step outside your home.

If you have something worth stealing, it should be insured. The cost of your deductible would be much less than lawyer fees defending yourself from possible criminal or civil suits. If it's a big enough bump in the night to warrant checking with a firearm, its probably wiser to stay inside and wait for the bump to come to you. I hate thieves as much as the next guy, but the reality is that nothing I own is worth dying or killing over. If it's possible to alert the thief to your awareness of his actions from inside your home, do it. He may run away, he may try and come after you, but at least you are inside, where you are on more stable legal ground.

I have yet to go to a call where a thief trying to steal a car, a stereo, a bike, etc has broken into the home when confronted by the homeowner to attack. Most of the time they run off upon being discovered. I've been to a few calls where the property owner or a neighbor was holding the thief at gunpoint. In those cases the thief was never armed, and if a scuffle ensued, the good-guy would have been between a rock and a hardplace. Shoot the unarmed thief, or try to fistfight a guy while retaining a gun.

The remaining issue is identifying yourself as the good guy if LEOs are responding. We may have gotten a call from your neighbor, and have no idea you are on your own property. You may not know we are there, or enroute. If you do catch the guy, even if we are aware you are holding the guy at gunpoint before we get there, we will certainly have our guns out, and pointed at or around you. Off duty LEOs run the same risk when drawing in plain clothes. All bets are off when uniformed LEOs see someone in plain clothes pointing a gun at someone else. You will at the minimum be ordered to drop the gun. Now there is an unsecured gun that may or may not be within leap and reach of the badguy. It may end well, it may not.

All this drama, and the thief will most likely end up with a misdemeanor charge for attempting to steal whatever it was that caught his eye. My cautionary tale ends with it is almost never a good idea to go outside with a gun to stop a property crime, no matter how legal it may be.

[paul0660]

Excellent post alex. There is this point however:

Shoot the unarmed thief, or try to fistfight a guy while retaining a gun.

Shouldn't citizens be held to the same standard as LEOs, and "I thought he had a gun" be the magic words?

[rockman]

Don't take this the wrong way, since we are all adults, and will do whatever makes us comfortable. Despite some legal exemptions to carrying a loaded firearm while affecting an arrest, or for personal protection it's still very murky water. My advice would be, that if there is a threat to your property, you call 911 while arming yourself, and stay in a defensible position inside your house. You are afforded some protection while inside your home, as someone breaking and entering is presumed to be there to harm you. No such protection exists when you step outside your home.

If you have something worth stealing, it should be insured. The cost of your deductible would be much less than lawyer fees defending yourself from possible criminal or civil suits. If it's a big enough bump in the night to warrant checking with a firearm, its probably wiser to stay inside and wait for the bump to come to you. I hate thieves as much as the next guy, but the reality is that nothing I own is worth dying or killing over. If it's possible to alert the thief to your awareness of his actions from inside your home, do it. He may run away, he may try and come after you, but at least you are inside, where you are on more stable legal ground.

I have yet to go to a call where a thief trying to steal a car, a stereo, a bike, etc has broken into the home when confronted by the homeowner to attack. Most of the time they run off upon being discovered. I've been to a few calls where the property owner or a neighbor was holding the thief at gunpoint. In those cases the thief was never armed, and if a scuffle ensued, the good-guy would have been between a rock and a hardplace. Shoot the unarmed thief, or try to fistfight a guy while retaining a gun.

The remaining issue is identifying yourself as the good guy if LEOs are responding. We may have gotten a call from your neighbor, and have no idea you are on your own property. You may not know we are there, or enroute. If you do catch the guy, even if we are aware you are holding the guy at gunpoint before we get there, we will certainly have our guns out, and pointed at or around you. Off duty LEOs run the same risk when drawing in plain clothes. All bets are off when uniformed LEOs see someone in plain clothes pointing a gun at someone else. You will at the minimum be ordered to drop the gun. Now there is an unsecured gun that may or may not be within leap and reach of the badguy. It may end well, it may not.

All this drama, and the thief will most likely end up with a misdemeanor charge for attempting to steal whatever it was that caught his eye. My cautionary tale ends with it is almost never a good idea to go outside with a gun to stop a property crime, no matter how legal it may be.

Real sound advice Alex, you should only think of using a gun if your life is in immediate danger

[Cokebottle]

Shouldn't citizens be held to the same standard as LEOs, and "I thought he had a gun" be the magic words?

Not even that.
"I was in fear for my life" are the magic words for civilians.

But it gets shaky if you are outside of your home. If you are inside, you have no duty to retreat, but if you took action to go outside to confront a potential intruder, you're on shaky ground.

[Mad Jax]

Unerstood. The day & age we live in so many different scenerios pop up Children running around in pac's armed and high, beating innocent or somewhat innocent people up, vandalizing in their little dark mob like setup, it hard to fight the urge of the old peacemaker & to grab your gun and extinguish the situation while waiting for the PD to show, in some cases every second counts & the idea of I could of done something if? Always haunts you. This post is to inform myself so I can refrain from the old urges, remember the good ole days, here and now every criminal is a victim of some society spread disease. He only steals because he can't get a job, he brutally beats people because he was spanked as a child, he only rapes because his mother didn't pay attion to him. The days of they got what they deserved ( after being proven of course) are gone. This I shall Defend has so many strings attached you almost have to run a computer program to find out if you have a green light to protect the innocentLike most people I'd rather not be a victim, or unable to do anything except call 911 & wait , but even worse be convicted for trying to make the right decision, you know what I mean?

[Mad Jax]

I appreciate your responses, thank you.

[alex00]

Shouldn't citizens be held to the same standard as LEOs, and "I thought he had a gun" be the magic words?

I absolutely agree with you that LEOs and non-LEOs should be held to the same standards for shooting. That being said, "I thought he had a gun", absent other evidence isn't as magical a pill as some would think. There have been LEOs, granted not many, charged with shooting unarmed people.

I think either group is going to have a very hard time defending a shoot on an empty handed person. Confusion of objects in the hand would probably go about the same for both groups. As a non-LEO if you are pointing a gun at someone and they present a wallet or cell phone in a threatening manner I would like to think that you would be given the same benefit of the doubt as we are. I think in some cases it may even be more favorable for the non-LEO who is involved in a questionable shoot, because we as LEOs are thought to have more training and experience identifying threats.

I think the best bet is no matter what we do for a living, make sure that if we are shooting at someone, they have something in their hand that can hurt or kill us. It's also a good idea to bring impartial witnesses to the gunfight, preferably ones with video cameras.

[Mad Jax]

If you were to hold a possible criminal at gun point, possible meaning haven't finished the crime but caught in the act, while awaiting the PD's arrival, is this legal? Or would it be considered holding someone against their Will? I know this isn't at all recomended & I'm not gearing myself up to be some sort of vigilante just a question.

[alex00]

If you were to hold a possible criminal at gun point, possible meaning haven't finished the crime but caught in the act, while awaiting the PD's arrival, is this legal? Or would it be considered holding someone against their Will? I know this isn't at all recomended & I'm not gearing myself up to be some sort of vigilante just a question.

It all depends. What you are describing is a private person arrest. Non-LEOs cannot detain for purposes of investigation like we can. Basically, if a crime has been committed and you are arresting the person that did it, you are good to go. There are certain exemptions to the Penal Code allowing you to possess a loaded gun while affecting a private persons arrest. There are some ins and outs of when you can arrest, based on knowledge of the crime and the criminal. The Penal Code also lists certain attempts as a crime (read 664). And, yes, it is not recommended. Forgetting the gun part for a second, I would highly discourage you from making a private person arrest. There is way too much civil liability if there wasn't a crime, or the charges are dropped. Bring a gun into the mix and you've pretty much bought a non-refundable ticket on the citizens arrest express.