What are we allowed to do if someone tries to steal our property?

[CrimsonClover]

TN law states we cannot shoot someone if they are messing with our property (dogs, car, etc) correct? So if you caught someone trying to steal your car, or another large or valuable possession, odds are they would have a gun right? So if you shot them (not to kill) you could claim self defense. If they did not have a gun, or had not made it visible, I am guessing shooting them in the foot would send us to jail? Input needed.

[DaveTN]

You are not justified in the use of deadly force to protect property.

If someone threatens you with a gun you are no longer protecting property; you are protecting your life. The fact they have a gun means nothing; unless they use it or threaten you with it.

My own personal test for the use of deadly force is very simple and would, I think, apply to most states.

The use of deadly force would be justified if a reasonable person would believe they were in immediate danger of death or great bodily harm.

Keep in mind that what a “reasonable person” believes doesn’t mean anyone cares what you were thinking; they don’t. It means a jury will decide if they thought what you did was reasonable to them.

You can’t shoot someone and know you won’t kill them; so that is not addressed in the law. Shooting them assumes deadly force.

Part of taking care of your family means staying out of prison and not financially bankrupting your family with a criminal trial. You probably don’t own any property that is worth risking that.

Now having said that let me add this… I was a Police Officer in a time where we could shoot people committing or fleeing forcible felonies. Those times are past and you, nor the Police can do that anymore. We need that changed back. Our laws need to protect the victim; not the offender.

[Alleycat72]

Orange shotgun with less than lethal buckshot to the legs.

[peejman]

1 hour ago, DaveTN said:

 

You are not justified in the use of deadly force to protect property

 

This.  

If they don't directly threaten you (not car jacking), call 911 and get a good description, pics, video, etc.  

Shooting at someone who's stealing stuff is a bad idea for several reasons.... jail, civil suit, etc. 

[Hozzie]

I don't care if someone wants to steal my car (so long as I am not in it), but mess with my dog and no one may ever know where you went.

[Ronald_55]

42 minutes ago, Hozzie said:

I don't care if someone wants to steal my car (so long as I am not in it), but mess with my dog and no one may ever know where you went.

@Hozzie = John Wick 

[Chucktshoes]

[KahrMan]

[bersaguy]

I don't actually own much property I would shoot someone over if they were trying to steal it. Now Darby on the other hand is a family member and messing with her you can possibly figure on getting shot. If you are in my house and not suppose to be you can also plan on getting shot. I did go out it the back yard for a few minutes to pop off a few caps at targets SIL has set out against a berm and I learned one thing. Darby was almost impossible to find and I finally found her in the house under the bed in her safe spot where she goes when it thunders. I left the door cracked and she opened it when she went in the house. Have not got her Doggie door in yet but I taught her how to nose open the door and I leave it cracked about 3 inches and she opens it with her nose and comes in. Now if I could just teach her to close it back things would be great..............

Edited July 12, 2019 by bersaguy

[A.J. Holst]

Pets are property, however, someone coming at my less than lethal barking dog, I'm probably in the foreground or background of that tactical picture.

How do I know you didn't select me out of the phone book, ala Navin R Johnson style, and you hate dogs as well?

[CrimsonClover]

I feel the same as you all re: protecting my dogs which I don't consider "property." But, TN now has the castle doctrine which states you can shoot a stranger just for entering your home, correct? So that justifies protecting your property inside the house, but not outside the house? Just want to get this clear.

[Omega]

Everyone above pretty much cover it, except the whole shoot to wound vs kill.  You never shoot to kill, you shoot to stop the act that is endangering your, or someone else's life.  Of course, you don't want them to continue life threatening acts after you shoot them,  so you keep shooting until they stop.

[chances R]

3 hours ago, CrimsonClover said:

I feel the same as you all re: protecting my dogs which I don't consider "property." But, TN now has the castle doctrine which states you can shoot a stranger just for entering your home, correct? So that justifies protecting your property inside the house, but not outside the house? Just want to get this clear.

The Castle Doctrine presumes that someone that forcefully and illegally enters your home is considered to be a threat of death or serious bodily injury and therefore one is permitted to use deadly force to end such a threat.  Your home is considered highly defensible property only because of the threat to person as noted.  

1 hour ago, Omega said:

Everyone above pretty much cover it, except the whole shoot to wound vs kill.  You never shoot to kill, you shoot to stop the act that is endangering your, or someone else's life.  Of course, you don't want them to continue life threatening acts after you shoot them,  so you keep shooting until they stop.

Presenting a firearm in and of itself is a potential felony unless justified in the line of self-defense, whether one shoots or not.  Shooting someone more than reasonably necessary will also put you at risk of going to jail.

And no, as much as you would like to, you can't shoot someone over a pet in most circumstances.

 

l

 

[CrimsonClover]

THANKS everybody, I only became a gun owner this year. I heard about that federal law that allows police to shoot an animal if they perceive it to be a threat (all it has to do is MOVE) therefore people are saying don't let police into your home without a warrant (if you have pets). I think for the most part most police like dogs and would never do such a thing.

[Erik88]

1 hour ago, CrimsonClover said:

THANKS everybody, I only became a gun owner this year. I heard about that federal law that allows police to shoot an animal if they perceive it to be a threat (all it has to do is MOVE) therefore people are saying don't let police into your home without a warrant (if you have pets). I think for the most part most police like dogs and would never do such a thing.

Cops don't have to play by the same set of rules. It's best if you not even think like that as they will be given a lot more leeway than you and I.  If you make a mistake you're likely going to prison.

 

 

[DaveTN]

14 hours ago, CrimsonClover said:

I feel the same as you all re: protecting my dogs which I don't consider "property." But, TN now has the castle doctrine which states you can shoot a stranger just for entering your home, correct? So that justifies protecting your property inside the house, but not outside the house? Just want to get this clear.

No, that is not correct, there are no free fire zones. Castle Doctrine is not really laws, but a set of legal principals.

You can’t just shoot a stranger just for entering your house. The person must have unlawfully and forcibly entered. If that occurs Tennessee law gives you a presumption that deadly force was justified. There is nothing that stops a DA from trying to remove that presumption and prove deadly force was not justified.

We live in times where 50% of the population has a problem with the Police or Citizens killing people committing crimes or threatening deadly force. (Like most statistics, I just made that number up on the spot to fit my narrative, but I believe its accurate. ) Know the law; it is your responsibility. There are going to be people that have days, weeks or even months to decide if what you did in a few seconds was reasonable. And some of those people don’t care if it was reasonable; they just want you convicted.

2 hours ago, CrimsonClover said:

THANKS everybody, I only became a gun owner this year. I heard about that federal law that allows police to shoot an animal if they perceive it to be a threat (all it has to do is MOVE) therefore people are saying don't let police into your home without a warrant (if you have pets). I think for the most part most police like dogs and would never do such a thing.

Did you ever read that Federal Law?

I’m a dog lover and own a dog; I would never do anything intentional to hurt an innocent dog. But if a dog attacked me I would shoot it; same as if a criminal attacked me.

As far as letting cops into your house without a warrant, I would guess that would depend on why there were there and why they wanted to go into your house; wouldn’t it?

Edited July 13, 2019 by DaveTN

[chances R]

Very few things can be explained completely with a few typed lines.  As Dave pointed out, your home is not automatically a free kill zone.  While the law weighs heavily to the homeowner, your flashlight is a very important tool in the middle of the night.  Daytime or night, you still need to recognize your target/intruder.  Is it a relative?  A drunk student or neighbor that wandered into your home, but otherwise not a threat.  A 14 yo who entered on a dare.  Is it someone you can live with yourself if you kill them, or will it haunt you the rest of your life, especially if you shot the 14yo in the back running out of your house?  Lots of questions with complicated answers to make in a blink of an eye.  Again a huge responsibility for a gun owner.

[bersaguy]

I am far cry from being trigger happy so chances are I would not just shoot someone for entering my home through an unlocked door as long as they announce they are in the house. Where I now live chances are if anyone comes in my door it will be a realtive of close friend. My Daughter and SIL and other family members that live close by always knock and wait for my reply to come in along with all friends. Now that being said coming thru a locked door which again would require some major noise with the dead bolts on my doors and al my windows also lock and would require breaking. Any entry of that nature may not get you shot but it will put you in a position that when you are inside you will be facing a muzzle of a large bore gun and told to get face down with arms spread while we wait on authorities.  Any failure by the perp to follow the orders might be cause for things to follow accordingly. Darby hears everything and alerts me to anything out side the house also.

[CrimsonClover]

Yeah, I read that federal law.

[billyblazes]

Germane although it's referencing Florida law:

CAR BURGLARIES IN FLORIDA -- SOME THOUGHTS

CAR BURGLARIES IN FLORIDA -- SOME THOUGHTS

copyright by jon gutmacher 2016

 

 

Good email question received on stopping a car burglary.  Here's the question and my response:

 

QUESTION:  A couple sessions ago the subject of using deadly force against a person
burglarizing a locked truck or attempting theft of the truck arose.
Florida seems to classify burglary as a forcible felony. While it would
appear that the use of deadly force is justified against a person in the
commission of a forcible felony, or to prevent / stop a forcible
felony. It also seems that in your 8th edition of "Florida Firearms"
(page starting 315) suggests that the use of deadly force in this case
would probably be considered excessive. The example given on page 315
is very similar to the scenario which raised the question.

As you might well understand, since there were a number of people
present, a number of points of view were considered. Do you have some
additional perspective on this situation which you would care to share
with us?

 

 

 

RESPONSE:

 

Sure,  a burglary  is a forcible felony.  An "attempted burglary" is not,  but the statute still allows you to use reasonable force to stop or prevent a forcible felony.  Preventing falls into the "attempted" burglary part.  However . . .  and this is the big "however" --  the "use" of deadly force must always be "reasonable" and "necessary".  Generally, that means an imminent threat to life or great bodily harm.  In some rare cases it means the crime was serious enough, even without imminent threat to life or great bodily harm -- that deadly force was required to stop it, or stop the perpetrator from escaping. 

 

Examples of death or gbh:  rape; murder; armed robbery; kidnapping; home invasion.

Examples of serious not in the above categories:  lots of "maybe's", and fact specific such that one jury might say "fine", and another "guilty".

 

However . . .  we get back to "use" of "deadly force".  Display is the "use" of a deadly weapon -- but not the "use" of deadly force.  It is (or should) always be "reasonable" when attempting to stop or prevent a "forcible felony".   But, pulling the trigger without adding a reasonable fear of imminent death or great bodily harm -- will almost always be "excessive force" -- and in that situation, excessive force will either be manslaughter or aggravated battery or aggravated assault  (the later if you're a lousy shot). 

 

What if the perpetrator tries to take your gun after you have it out?

 

Well . . .  again . . .  that's a question up for grabs and interpretation,  but my legal opinion is that you now have an imminent death or great bodily harm situation if he gets it.  But,  if you have even the slightest chance of doing so -- back away and issue a loud verbal warning as much as possible for legal reasons more than factual.  One step back will change your legal position in court. More are better.  A loud verbal warning ("Stop, or I'll shoot!) is a very good idea.

What about shooting if it seems he's not deterred and will take the vehicle?
Answer:  I don't know.

You now have a situation where deadly force seems to be the only way (ie "necessary") to stop the crime.  Is it "reasonable"?  

Well,  if it's a two hundred dollar junk car -- no.  If it's your only way to work, and you can't afford another -- and that's what you're gonna say to the jury:  "I killed him because otherwise he would have taken my car, and I'd miss work" -- think how that sounds, and pray you get me or someone like me on the jury.  Unfortunately,  what is "reasonable" to one person may not be reasonable to another.

 

copyright 2016 by jon gutmacher    --       www.floridafirearmslaw.com

 

 

[DaveTN]

45 minutes ago, billyblazes said:

Germane although it's referencing Florida law:

These ideas have been tried in Tennessee. As a matter of fact it was Tennessee V. Garner that stopped the shooting of fleeing forcible felons.

Each case has to be looked at individually. Most of these conversations inevitably end up with the bad guy armed and a good citizen wanting to know if its okay to kill them. Well its kinda like saying the cops killed someone over a simple traffic ticket, when the truth is the cop killed someone because they were trying to kill them. If someone is armed and threatening you; you are no longer dealing with a property case, and how you got there may well have very little bearing on the case.

The lines you can or cannot cross are generally pretty clear. Unless of course you want to become a test dummy at trial. If you find yourself headed for trial; you have a serious problem.

[GlockSpock]

On 7/12/2019 at 3:10 PM, A.J. Holst said:

Pets are property, however, someone coming at my less than lethal barking dog, I'm probably in the foreground or background of that tactical picture.

How do I know you didn't select me out of the phone book, ala Navin R Johnson style, and you hate dogs as well?

I didn't miss it

[chances R]

Clover I noted that you have a HCP, which surprises me that these questions and scenarios weren't discussed.  Also remember what is said on the internet can and will be held against you.  You will never lose a gunfight you are not involved in; avoidance is the best policy.