Legality of shooting someone stealing your guns

[bwiese]

Shooting a fleeing theft suspect who has just stolen your firearm, if the person does not pose an immediate threat of death, great bodily harm or injury to you or someone else - and you must be able to articulate the immediate threat; speculation is not sufficient - will land you in state prison. Period.

Exactly.

I'm always surprised these questions even come up.

[Flopper]

A peace officer can use deadly force against a fleeing felony suspect if the suspect is a proximate danger to the community. A citizen may use deadly force only if they or another person is in immediate danger of death, great bodily harm or injury. That does not include a suspect fleeing with one of your firearms unless they are preparing to fire/are firing at you or another person. Shooting a fleeing theft suspect who has just stolen your firearm, if the person does not pose an immediate threat of death, great bodily harm or injury to you or someone else - and you must be able to articulate the immediate threat; speculation is not sufficient - will land you in state prison. Period.

Isn't it interesting how you said the same thing in two different ways, but at the end of the day LEO's can only use deadly force in the same situations as "civilians?"

[bwiese]

If they got one of my guns, they're armed. Nuff said.

Go straight to prison - I'm interpreting your statement that you think that it's OK to shoot in a 'general possession of arms' condition, which it is NOT.

[steelrain82]

I know the most likely outcome, it was just a thought I had running through my mind seeing how (two different worlds) in the military I was taught from that even if a person is fleeing after stealing weapons they are now a national threat as they can use that weapon to kill or injure, and we could put them down. I know the civilian world is different but if this hypothetical event happened and my for some people who aren't as gun law savvy and are out of the service would using this defense possibly be helpful. The thief is now in possession of weapons that are a threat to society in the wrong hands.

[gunsmith]

I'm always amazed that people use the term "shoot to kill" .
Shooting is always deadly force, never use the term "shoot to kill".

Also, inevitably in these threads you get the same old fud about "you cant shoot him in the back" as if Judges/Juries/Prosecutors only follow what they learned from B movie westerns. If the criminal is a threat to ( for instance ) a loved one and you are directly behind him - he does not have to turn around before you can shoot him.

[tiki]

http://www.sacramentotoday.net/news/templates/community.asp?articleid=1979&zoneid=1

[jamesob]

they are armed, KAPOWWY

[dantodd]

You shouldn't have been chasing them. That's LE's job.

No, it is society's job, just because some people are paid to do the job doesn't mean WE no longer carry an obligation. Abdication of such responsibility is just one of the many things that happen when we, as a people, become lazy.

[email]

If they are stealing your guns, you'll need to get one back to shoot them.

[lawaia]

No, it is society's job, just because some people are paid to do the job doesn't mean WE no longer carry an obligation. Abdication of such responsibility is just one of the many things that happen when we, as a people, become lazy.

While I admire your nobility, there is a reality to this situation. My obligation to protect and defend ends when the threat to me or my family has ended.

You are chasing down a BG that you know is ARMED with one of your own guns. You are creating the situation where you will possibly (likely) have to shoot (maybe thereby killing) this individual if they fight back when cornered or caught. At what point have you tried to de-escalate the situation? You have forced the issue, because he was already running away from you. Most cornered or trapped animals fight back. The BG did not bring the fight to you, you forced it upon him. Think about how a jury might view that.

Don't forget also that you are putting yourself into a situation where you could possibly be shot and/or killed. I prefer to live another day to buy a replacement gun and spend time with my family.

If chasing armed BG'S is what floats your boat, then I hope you are LE. If not, we'll be seeing you in prison or the morgue or the food line.

[Tacobandit]

No.



Yes.

Actually yes, In Common law, the Fleeing Felon Rule permits the use of force, including deadly force, against an individual who is suspected of a felony and is in clear flight.[citation needed] Force may be used by the victim, bystanders, or police officers.[citation needed] In some jurisprudence failure to use such force was a misdemeanor which could result in a fine or imprisonment.[citation needed] According to David Caplan "Immediate stopping of the fleeing felon, whether actually or presumably dangerous, was deemed absolutely necessary for the security of the people in a free state, and for maintaining the "public security." ... "[citation needed] Indeed, it has been said that the social policy of the common law in this matter was not only to threaten dangerous felons and hence deter them, but was also to induce them to "surrender peaceably" if they dared commit inherently dangerous felonies, rather than allow them to "escape trial for their crime.

In a situation where a firearm is stolen you CAN use deadly force to stop the suspects flight, it is a public risk to allow a felon to leave a scene with a firearm as it can legally be assumed that the firearm will be used to commit crimes involving the threat or use of violence resulting in serious bodily death or injury.

I have nearly a decade experience in the legal system making arrests and interpreting laws including testifying on the stand. I have been on homicide investigations involving where a victims liquore store was robbed at gun point and as the suspect was fleeing the scene the store owners son came out of the back office and put 2 rounds in the guys back killing him, NO CHARGES FILED. I may have just a tiny bit of knowledge about what I am talking about.

[Fossil]

This case requires us to determine the constitutionality of the use of deadly force to prevent the escape of an apparently unarmed suspected felon. We conclude that such force may not be used unless it is necessary to prevent the escape and the officer has probable cause to believe that the suspect poses a significant threat of death or serious physical injury to the officer or others.

That's straight from Tennessee V Garner (1985) the U.S. Supreme Court ruling that declared that shooting all fleeing felons was in violation of the 4th amendment.
I would say unless said burglar is presenting an immediate threat towards you or another person let them go it isn't worth it. Another thing to keep in mind is that if your firearms were improperly stored you may be on the hook for some of the liability from their misuse.

[Tacobandit]

This case requires us to determine the constitutionality of the use of deadly force to prevent the escape of an apparently unarmed suspected felon. We conclude that such force may not be used unless it is necessary to prevent the escape and the officer has probable cause to believe that the suspect poses a significant threat of death or serious physical injury to the officer or others.

That's straight from Tennessee V Garner (1985) the U.S. Supreme Court ruling that declared that shooting all fleeing felons was in violation of the 4th amendment.
I would say unless said burglar is presenting an immediate threat towards you or another person let them go it isn't worth it. Another thing to keep in mind is that if your firearms were improperly stored you may be on the hook for some of the liability from their misuse.

That is a ruling against OFFICERS, you are a citizen you are not bound by the 4th amendment and it simply states that officers must have PROBABLE CAUSE before they can shoot, not that they can not shoot ever. As much as the board wants to downgrade officers to that of ordinary citizens its not going to happen the courts have all ready ruled that officers are not the same as citizens and must follow stricter rules then citizens in situations like this, also Garner was in reference to an unarmed fleeing felon not a felon you know to be armed. In the situation given you would be within the fleeing felon law if you would shoot.

You are correct though that improper firearm storage could result in civil litigation.

[Fossil]

Taco you missed my point entirely... I also recommend you drink some decaf this early in the morning instead of trying to YELL words you think are important.

Yes Tennessee V Garner is directed at peace officers, but my point was simply. That as a plain civilian to shoot a fleeing burglar you better have a better reason than, "he is running away from me with my unloaded firearm that he just stole from my house" of course that's assuming proper storage. Also keep in mind that if you do decide to shoot this burglar, and miss your target striking little Timmy playing basketball you're now going to have your colon cleaned out by a steel bore brush as you are sent up river to prison.

Back to the OP's original question:

http://ag.ca.gov/firearms/forms/pdf/Cfl2006.pdf

Here's some good reading material even though it is from 2006 it is still relevant. It covers many of the aspects of self defense and the use of firearms when doing so for non-peace officers.

[Tacobandit]

Taco you missed my point entirely... I also recommend you drink some decaf this early in the morning instead of trying to YELL words you think are important.

Yes Tennessee V Garner is directed at peace officers, but my point was simply. That as a plain civilian to shoot a fleeing burglar you better have a better reason than, "he is running away from me with my unloaded firearm that he just stole from my house" of course that's assuming proper storage. Also keep in mind that if you do decide to shoot this burglar, and miss your target striking little Timmy playing basketball you're now going to have your colon cleaned out by a steel bore brush as you are sent up river to prison.

Back to the OP's original question:

http://ag.ca.gov/firearms/forms/pdf/Cfl2006.pdf

Here's some good reading material even though it is from 2006 it is still relevant. It covers many of the aspects of self defense and the use of firearms when doing so for non-peace officers.

Dont drink coffee, cap locks are used for emphasis, not yelling. Also there is a little think called intent, your intent is to stop a fleeing felon, even with transferred intent which infers that if you are trying to shoot someone to cause them SBI or death and you kill timmy then you would be going to prison because your INTENT was to cause SBI. In the OP's scenario you are attempting to stop a fleeing felon, who will at a later date cause SBI to someone else with a stolen firearm. You will be open to civil litigation though. As I have stated earlier, get a safe and store your firearms properly to avoid every aspect of this scenario.