Self Defense via Vehicle Break In?

[cyh1830]

A couple of days ago, I met a female police officer that made a comment that I still question and have a hard time believing. I asked her to repeat, three times, and I received the same adamant response.

And I paraphrase, “The Supreme Court has ruled, that if you catch a perpetrator breaking into your car, without you in it, you can shoot that individual. The Supreme Court has ruled that you have the right to protect your property.â€

Now, protecting life is one thing, but protecting property? This is way different than anything I have ever been taught or read. I have researched for information regarding this and, as expected, have found none.

This person lives in my neighborhood. Although this was a one-time meeting, I am going to attempt to recover some kind of referencing. Pending I feel safe walking to the front door and knocking?

Wouldn’t want to threaten anyone’s property.

Insights?

Edited June 26, 2011 by cyh1830

[mikegideon]

I think the lady popo is dead wrong.

[Photoguy67]

I am thinking she heard of a ruling and didn't fully understand it, or is just an idiot.

[TNRobocop]

In Texas maybe.

[Guest frank318]

Tennessee Code Annotated section 39-11-614 ©clearly states that“Unless a person is justified in using deadly force as otherwise provided by law, a person is not justified in using deadly force to prevent or terminate the other’s trespass on real estate or unlawful interference with personal property.”

She is incorrect. Property can be replaced. So long as you are not in harms way you can not shoot. Just be a good witness and get a good description. Unless he shoots first of course.

[mikegideon]

In Texas maybe.

I think you're right. Has nothing to do with the Supreme Court, though.

[bigwakes]

I was in a class about firearm safety and the Williamson County district attorney was there to answer questions. I asked him if I was being car jacked if the perp is unarmed can I use deadly force to keep my vehicle out of his hands. He said his interpretation of the law is that the bad guy taking your vehicle would mean he now has a deadly weapon and would put you in bodily harm. He said it might be open to interpretation from other DAs, but he would not prosecute. On a side note I asked him if I was authorized to use deadly force to keep my firearm out of the hands of an unarmed bad guy and he said absolutely. If you feel someone is trying to grab your weapon you can use deadly force to stop that person from getting your weapon.

[K191145]

I was under the impression that Tennessee's Castle Doctron allows a property owner to CONFRONT someone tresspassing, and or stealing their property weather it be yard shed or vehicle etc. Then if the person threatens or attacks the property owner during the confrotantion he/she may very well be justified in using deadly force to protect their life. That would be different than protecting simple property.

Also I believe that any AGRAVATED CARJACKING is justifiable for using deadly force weather the car jacker has a weapon or not. In Tennessee that is.

[Oh Shoot]

Car break-in while you are in it affords the same fear for life presumption as home break-in. Vehicle is specifically mentioned in the deadly force statutes for this circumstance.

However, you can't have loaded firearm in car without a permit.

However however, if you must use weapon in justified shooting, you can't be charged with the firearm violation.

- OS

[Guest NashvegasMatt]

Although we overkill this topic, I'll still chime in. Imminent danger is the key to this debate, as I understand it. If you walk up on someone who is stealing your car, you do not have the right to shoot. If you walk up on someone breaking into your car, they turn around and come after you with a knife.... fire away. Imminent danger is the bridge that must be crossed for legality.

[Caster]

In Texas maybe.

...and Louisiana. Defense of property kinda thing.

[K191145]

Although we overkill this topic, I'll still chime in. Imminent danger is the key to this debate, as I understand it. If you walk up on someone who is stealing your car, you do not have the right to shoot. If you walk up on someone breaking into your car, they turn around and come after you with a knife.... fire away. Imminent danger is the bridge that must be crossed for legality.

The question is, how far can you go? If you see someone attempting to steal your car and you confront them to make them stop, is having your hand on a holstered gun too far? You haven't shot them, if they run and you let them go I have a feeling that a DA or LEO around here wont press charges against you. But in some opinions just brandishing a gun is considered deadly force. Of course in my opinion, which doesn't mean squat in a court room, is deadly force is actually discharging the gun.

[Guest lostpass]

Cheese and biscuits! Shouldn't this be common sense? Shooting someone who is breaking into your car is possibly taking a life over a bit of property. Could be legal in texas or whatever but any sane person should know better. If you could shoot anyone who was stealing from you Wall Street would be a bloody mess right now.

In my world, the world of responsible gun owners, you shoot at another person only to protect another human life.

[Guest friesepferd]

um, no. not in this state.

ask HER to get the referance.

[Guest NashvegasMatt]

The question is, how far can you go? If you see someone attempting to steal your car and you confront them to make them stop, is having your hand on a holstered gun too far? You haven't shot them, if they run and you let them go I have a feeling that a DA or LEO around here wont press charges against you. But in some opinions just brandishing a gun is considered deadly force. Of course in my opinion, which doesn't mean squat in a court room, is deadly force is actually discharging the gun.

if they run away, how would you be pressed with charges in the first place. That means the person who was trying to steal your car would walk into the police station and say this:"excuse I would like to report a crime. I was attempting to steal a car when a man brandished his gun at me! I feel violated!"

[K191145]

if they run away, how would you be pressed with charges in the first place. That means the person who was trying to steal your car would walk into the police station and say this:"excuse I would like to report a crime. I was attempting to steal a car when a man brandished his gun at me! I feel violated!"

Well I know that but I might want to report a car theif in my area so the police can be on the look out for them. The point I guess i'm trying to make, or question is just what is considered "using deadly force"? Showing a theif trying to steal your car or breaking into your tool shed a gun to make them stop, or actually shooting at them? I have heard before that the simple act of brandishing a firearm at someone is considered deadly force. I have before and will again recon my property with a firearm when I suspect an intruder, this is outside the house. Fortunatly it hasn't been a person yet and I don't want to call law enforcement for a racoon ratteling around in my out building so I will check it out first. I don't plan on just shooting at someone trying to steal property even if they run, but if I catch someone violating my property they may very well have a firearm pointed at them, or at least see I have one ready.

[Guest WyattEarp]

A couple of days ago, I met a female police officer that made a comment that I still question and have a hard time believing. I asked her to repeat, three times, and I received the same adamant response.

And I paraphrase, “The Supreme Court has ruled, that if you catch a perpetrator breaking into your car, without you in it, you can shoot that individual. The Supreme Court has ruled that you have the right to protect your property.”

Now, protecting life is one thing, but protecting property? This is way different than anything I have ever been taught or read. I have researched for information regarding this and, as expected, have found none.

This person lives in my neighborhood. Although this was a one-time meeting, I am going to attempt to recover some kind of referencing. Pending I feel safe walking to the front door and knocking?

Wouldn’t want to threaten anyone’s property.

Insights?

i think she meant to say "CAN NOT" shoot that individual. my teacher in the class at Guns and Leather, said you ABSOLUTELY CAN NOT shoot someone or use deadly force against someone who is trying to break into your car if you are NOT in the car. So you come out of the movies walking towards your car, and you see joe meth head is breaking into your car to steal it, DON'T PULL ON HIM, and DON'T SHOOT HIM. Instead, call the police, report it stolen, call in the license plate, give all the description you can. Reason: You are not in IMMINENT FEAR for your life, or in fear of serious bodily harm/injury because you are not in anyway involved, so don't further inject yourself into the situation, 12 people might not like that too much, and you might become the caged animal.

Now if you're getting into your car in the Wal-Mart Parking lot, and Joe Meth Head grabs you or tells you to get out of the car, by all means shoot the bastard. Or if you at 8th and Grand waiting on a red light to turn green, and you get carjacked, then shoot him.

[Guest WyattEarp]

double post ftl. (internet issues)

Edited June 28, 2011 by WyattEarp

[Guest WyattEarp]

triple post FTL. (internet issues)

[cyh1830]

i think she meant to say "CAN NOT" shoot that individual. my teacher in the class at Guns and Leather, said you ABSOLUTELY CAN NOT shoot someone or use deadly force against someone who is trying to break into your car if you are NOT in the car.

I absolutely agree with everything you have posted.

But ... she did say you CAN shoot them (via Supreme Court ruling). I know, it sounds stupid. That's why I asked her to repeat, 3 times.

I am going to follow up with her ASAP and start digging for her "evidence" or lack thereof.

[bigwakes]

You are authorized to use force to protect your property.....just not deadly force. I don't think I could see Joe meth head breaking into my car and just call the police.

[DaveTN]

39-11-614. Protection of property.

(a) A person in lawful possession of real or personal property is justified in threatening or using force against another, when and to the degree it is reasonably believed the force is immediately necessary to prevent or terminate the other's trespass on the land or unlawful interference with the property.

A person who has been unlawfully dispossessed of real or personal property is justified in threatening or using force against the other, when and to the degree it is reasonably believed the force is immediately necessary to reenter the land or recover the property, if the person threatens or uses the force immediately or in fresh pursuit after the dispossession:

(1) The person reasonably believes the other had no claim of right when the other dispossessed the person; and

(2) The other accomplished the dispossession by threatening or using force against the person.

© Unless a person is justified in using deadly force as otherwise provided by law, a person is not justified in using deadly force to prevent or terminate the other's trespass on real estate or unlawful interference with personal property.

Acts 1989, ch. 591, § 1; 2009, ch. 194, § 1.

The Threat of force in this state is justifiable to protect property. However the use of deadly force is specifically addressed by statute. I don’t see anything that would prevent you from the threatening someone with a gun if they were stealing your property. However the use of deadly force would require that the situation escalated to the point of a reasonable person (a jury) believing that you were in immediate danger of death or great bodily harm.

No one in their right mind would want to go to trial to justify the use of deadly force to prevent a theft. Once the threat to you becomes real it isn’t about property anymore. The mistake many people make here is that no one cares what you thought the level of danger was, only what a Police Officer, DA, Jury or Judge will think you should have done when.

“Imminent danger†is only one element and refers to time. A person can be a threat to you one second and that threat is gone the next (they turn and run). A “Reasonable Person†and “danger of Death or great bodily harm†is also key required elements.

Car-jacking is not the theft of property; it is a crime of violence. I highly doubt a person is going to ask me nicely to get out of my car so he can have it. He is going to threaten me and then I have to make a decision based on that threat. If he is threatening me with a deadly weapon it is no different than threatening me with a deadly weapon walking down the street; it is armed robbery.

I think the Officer may be confused by SCOTUS decisions that address a Police Officer using deadly force in the case of a fleeing felon; there are many. However, arguing about what she knows or meant is useless without her to explain her position.

The bottom line is… protecting property won’t cut it; if you use deadly force a jury would need to believe you were protecting your life and that they would have done the same in your situation.

I never want my freedom to be based on a jury decision, so I have my own rules for my use of deadly force that I believe will work no matter what state I am in.

[DaveTN]

Double Tap

[Guest friesepferd]

oh ya, i certainly agree if someone is car jacking you - that is they are thretening you to give them your car or else, thats different.

walking up to someone that was breaking into your car when you werent there is different though.

[cyh1830]

Double Tap

Well said, DaveTN!

Will you be my valen ... uh, lawyer?