In every carry class I teach or act as an attorney for another instructor, I make a very deliberate point to go over Michigan's use of force laws and cover the question of the use of deadly force to defend property.
Quick short answer - you can't.
Nor can you do so in most states, including, Indiana where today's lesson is located.
Simply put, you may not use deadly force against someone merely committing a property offense, and most especially not when they are running away without posing a threat.
When you try to do so, this happens: Burglar sues homeowner who shot him
Yes, it is rather crazy that a burglar can sue a homeowner for shooting him, and in a perfect world criminal activity should cancel out any right to sue for injuries incurred in the commission of a crime, but look at the rather bad facts here:
1. The burglar was not in the premises when the homeowner shot at him but was running down an alley.
2. The homeowner was chasing the fleeing burglar.
3. Add on top of this that the burglar claims his name is Dindunuffin, and that while he had plead guilty to a "related" burglary charge he is pure as the driven snow and didn't break into the garage, and you're looking at a lawsuit, not to mention potential criminal charges as happened to the homeowner in this case.
Quick and easy lesson - do not shoot at, nor apply any other lethal force upon, fleeing persons not posing an imminent deadly threat to you.
Now don't do that, ok?
7 comments:
Or, in the alternative, shoot him better and bury him somewhere.
And if you hate the idea of criminals being able to sue their victims, thank those trial lawyers who contribute millions of dollars each election cycle to politicians.
Not trying to bash all lawyers here, but 95% of them give the rest of us a bad name.
Yeah, I have no qualms about shooting someone in the back if the only other choice is to let him shoot someone else. But as far as property is concerned, if you haven't breeched the walls of my house it's yelling and a call to police. And if you DO breach them but turn and run I won't shoot you. But you BETTER turn and run.
Yeah, I have no qualms about shooting someone in the back if the only other choice is to let him shoot someone else. But as far as property is concerned, if you haven't breeched the walls of my house it's yelling and a call to police. And if you DO breach them but turn and run I won't shoot you. But you BETTER turn and run.
I've made this same comment maybe a million times (okay, maybe only half-a-million) in various blogs regarding bad shootings, and I've been called names, lectured on Texas law (always incorrectly), and told, "I worked for my property, therefore it's a portion of my life, therefore if I shoot to protect my property I'm really shooting to protect my life." (Really!) And, of course, "I feel like . . ." I guess they don't get that the law doesn't care how you feel.
I'm glad you're putting this out there. I've given up. If people want to bankrupt themselves and put themselves in prison, it's not my problem.
Indeed.
As you said, the law on this varies from state to state. Surprisingly enough, the den of leeches, loonies, liberals and leftists - known as NY State - under limited circumstances, allows the use of deadly force to stop some property crimes like arson and burglary. In addition, under very, limited circumstances, NY law allows for a person to use deadly force against a person who has committed certain crimes.
http://ypdcrime.com/penal.law/article35.htm#p35.20
ML: That just never works in real life. Not recommended.
PH: Yep, if the person is presenting an imminent deadly threat to you or others then almost always deadly force can be used, if not, not.
Old 1811: Yep, you wouldn't believe how many people I need to repeatedly stress this to. Besides if you shoot them while they're running away with your TV they're going to drop and break it anyways.
Keads: Yep.
Glenn B: I can see the arson and burglary allowing for deadly force under the statute because its permitted for an occupied building or dwelling under sec 3 because of the threats to occupants of the building so its almost less a property defense than a defense of persons in the building.
Post a Comment