Question For the Instructors on the Forum

[Smith]

Besides that, judging the full intent of an intruder is not one I'm going to give a lot of deliberation. How many robbery homicides are there? Not a chance I'm willing to take. Now if said bad guy is already fleeing....that's one thing, but in a confortation he won't be given the benefit of the doubt.

[GLOCKMEISTER]

hey.. they used to hang horse thieves back in the day, wouldnt hurt my feelings if we got back to that type of thinking.

[PackinMama]

My random observations over the course of 10 years......

Most people think you SHOULD be able to shoot people who are stealing stuff.....

Seems that the majority of the people on this board feel this way too ....based on some other posts I've seen on here.

It's simply a matter of stopping someone from taking what one has worked hard to provide for themselves and their families...

People who put up no resistance to being robbed, when it is within their power, effectively deserve to lose what has been taken. That in no way advocates taking a life over property... but it certainly means that it's ridiculous to say that it's only right to have the mentality to not be a victim only in the worst possible scenario.

Saying that robbery/theft should not be resisted means that someone else other than yourself is responsible for preserving your way of life... and that is a mentality which I cannot agree with.

If I'm not home when stuff is taken, oh well.

To see this from a larger perspective... what if vital food/medical/energy/whatever supplies of a country were regularly pirated by outside marauders, leaving the people wanting? Would that country not be justified in protecting what is theirs with force? Or, should the thefts be simply allowed, since the sovereignty of the country, and the wellness of its people aren't worth a war, because there was no direct attack?

The original text that I replied to was "Most people think you SHOULD be able to shoot people who are stealing stuff." Nowhere did I ever say that I would "put up no resistance to being robbed." What I am saying is I wouldn't shoot someone JUST for stealing from me. Now, if someone were to break into my house while I was home.....that's different. In that situation, I would not know what the intruder's motives were, and I would have to assume the worst and then take appropriate action. On the other hand, if I saw someone on my property taking something....say out of my barn for instance.....I do not believe that shooting them would be the correct/right thing to do (law or no law)......even if I lived in Texas. I believe I would approach them with my gun drawn....maybe shoot beside them to scare them off.....but unless they had a weapon on them or came at me, I wouldn't shoot them simply for stealing.

I think this is a highly debatable subject with a large amount of "what if's" and probably deserves it's own thread if we really want to get deep into it. That's why I made my original comment short......I didn't want to hijack this thread. Seems like this one already has a nice little "friendly" battle going on

[Fallguy]

Ok....I'll go off topic too. Although I think this has been discussed at some link on another thread.

What I would like to see is the legal right to use deadly force to stop a robbery/theft. Right now we do not have that choice.

Now does that mean I would shoot the person taking something out of my shed (I don't have a barn )? Well it depends....My main intention would be to prevent my property from being stolen. If my confronting the thief with the threat of deadly force (legal IMO in TN as of now) is enough good.... but if he continues to hold on to my property and attempts to leave my land and the only way to stop my property from leaving my land is to stop him, then so be it (although I would not do so in TN as of now). HE has made the choice that his life was worth less than my property, not me thinking my property is worth more than his life.

I would not shoot first and ask questions later in that situation...and don't think most would either...only if it was the only way to prevent the theft.

...and as I think we all have agreed, breaking into my residence is a whole nother ball of wax!!

[molonlabetn]

PackinMama, I don't disagree with you. No possession of mine is worth taking a life over.

But, as you even mention yourself, resistance to that theft is perfectly reasonable... my point is that for a weaker or outnumbered person to effectively deter theft, it is only logical for them to be armed... and the truth of it is, is that as soon as you introduce a firearm into the confrontation, that is effectually 'deadly-force', whether or not you shoot, or fire a warning shot. So, the prohibition against the use of 'deadly-force' in order to preserve the security of one's home and belongings is a serious handicap for those who have no other means to do so. And that is all I am arguing.

[Fallguy]

molonlabetn you and I may be interpreting the law differently. To me 39-11-614 Protection of property. makes a distinction between the threat of and the use of force, including deadly force. It does say that you can not "use" deadly force, but it does not say you that you can not "threaten" it.

I take that to mean that it is perfectly legal to confront someone on your property while armed. IMO you can even have aim on them, you just can't shoot them, unless it became a self-defense situation under 39-11-611

[PackinMama]

PackinMama, I don't disagree with you. No possession of mine is worth taking a life over.

But, as you even mention yourself, resistance to that theft is perfectly reasonable... my point is that for a weaker or outnumbered person to effectively deter theft, it is only logical for them to be armed... and the truth of it is, is that as soon as you introduce a firearm into the confrontation, that is effectually 'deadly-force', whether or not you shoot, or fire a warning shot. So, the prohibition against the use of 'deadly-force' in order to preserve the security of one's home and belongings is a serious handicap for those who have no other means to do so. And that is all I am arguing.

Fair enough molonlabetn

I believe I even agree with your last statement there. I would just be afraid that if that law were changed, there'd be a lot of unnecessary killing by people that wouldn't use proper discretion in certain situations. Kind of like the guy who had his radiator stolen.

[molonlabetn]

molonlabetn you and I may be interpreting the law differently. To me 39-11-614 Protection of property. makes a distinction between the threat of and the use of force, including deadly force. It does say that you can not "use" deadly force, but it does not say you that you can not "threaten" it.

I take that to mean that it is perfectly legal to confront someone on your property while armed. IMO you can even have aim on them, you just can't shoot them, unless it became a self-defense situation under 39-11-611

My caution with that interpretation lies in the specific code pertaining to deadly force by private citizen:

(excerpt from)39-11-621. Use of deadly force by private citizen. —

A private citizen, in making an arrest authorized by law, may use force reasonably necessary to accomplish the arrest of an individual who flees or resists the arrest; provided, that a private citizen cannot use or threaten to use deadly force except to the extent authorized under self-defense or defense of third person statutes, §§ 39-11-611 and 39-11-612.

[Acts 1989, ch. 591, § 1.]

Here it makes no distinction of the justification to use or threaten deadly force in order to apprehend a law-breaker except as self defense. It is written in terms of citizen's arrest, but that is exactly how it would be treated if you apprehended a criminal for crimes on one's own property. Besides that, I've always been under the impression that aiming or threatening with a firearm is equal to deadly-force.

"Force" in and of itself is less than "Deadly Force", and does not include the use (or threat of use) of weapons: 39-11-106

(12) “Force” means compulsion by the use of physical power or violence and shall be broadly construed to accomplish the purposes of this title;

Edited March 21, 2008 by molonlabetn

[Fallguy]

Dang molonlabetn, you may be two for two. I admit under the citizens arrest statute (and I agree in effect that is what you are doing) it does not even allow for the threat of deadly force. To me the two laws are somewhat in conflict and it very easily could not go your way.

But a citizens arrest can be done by a citizen anywhere for any crime. The defense of property law is explicitly limited to preventing the theft of or recovery of personal property (it also references trespass) and even mentions deadly force and does not reference 39-11-621. IMO they wanted to give a landowner the ability to protect his property without having to make a citizens arrest.

Just another reason I feel the law ought to be changed more like in TX though.

Packingmama...you and I are friends, but I guess we just disagree on this point. If the law was to change and you take my radiator, it's your fault you got shot, not mine.

[Guest jaypee]

Hey guys.

There are two kinds of law. Statutory law and case law. Both are equally binding, and case law can radically alter the meaning of a given statute. So before we begin to rely too heavily on personal opinions, we should dig into case law and see what the prevailing court rulings in Tennessee have been on these issues. It's fine and good to have an opinion about what a law means, but only the court systems' opinion counts. It might also be wise to check and see if the Attorney General of Tennessee has rendered any formal opinions in these matters. Self defense law in the United States is very old and well established, and I'd be willing to bet you will find a great deal of case law on this subject that probably goes well back into the 1800's or even 1700's. I believe it will shed a great deal of light on the things under discussion here that we're uncertain of or disagree about.

For the benefit of further discussion, it should be noted that robbery, theft, and burglary are three separate and distinct crimes, each with its own precise legal definition. So if we are going to discuss the legality of our actions in response to these crimes, especially if we are going to use statutory law to do it, we must do it with respect to the legal definition of each crime and exercize caution in lumping them together. For instance, if we say we'd do this or that in response to a theft or a robbery, we're mixing apples and oranges because robbery is a felony and theft is a misdemeanor (below a certain monetary limit). So there may be different constraints on your actions from one crime to the other and lumping them together can sometimes cause misunderstandings as to what is permitted and what isn't.

Aside from that I got the trigger in my Hi Power fixed and it was a great day in Kingsport.

JayPee

[Cruel Hand Luke]

Am I the only one here who got the joke?

The humor in Packingmama's post was that it seemed like some in this thread were willing to shoot EACH OTHER for stealing each other's material.....I thought it was freakin' hilarious.

Couple of thoughts. If someone PAYS to take your class and then takes that material and uses it .....you SOLD IT TO THEM so quit whining. If you don't want people cooking with your bacon quit selling your bacon. If you sell someone a pound of bacon you no longer have any say over whether they use it for seasoning beans or whether they use it to make breakfast or a BLT. It is now THEIR bacon! So if you don't want people to put it in their beans...DO NOT SELL IT.

On the other hand the party who uses the material really does bear some responsibility to credit where he got it if he knows where it came from. That is just the right thing to do. VERY few instructors really come up with anything truly outside the box that has not been done before. One exception is Southnarc whose material on managing unknown contacts is truly unique. But the rest of us are not inventing anything that no one else has ever thought of, after all there are only so many ways to do things when you have 2 arms and 2 legs.

Even the stuff I came up with that was adopted for Suarez International's AK Program is not anything so original that I can say for sure that AK users SOMEWHERE else have not used at some time. It is just too simple for someone NOT to have used it before. But I have never seen anyone write about it or heard anyone use it (The specific material I'm referring to is a sighting method and a 2 point sling transition method). But am I going to get all pissed off if someone else starts teaching it? No. But if you got it from me or from the SI AK class,I just prefer you mention where you picked it up....that is the only RIGHT thing to do.

Most of us are honestly either teaching someone else's material, or teaching our take on someone else's material. A FEW are trying to mix different schools of thought and make things "fit together" taking the various schools of thought and working them into a cohesive program. Then there is an even more limited few who are truly innovating and doing something new. But even then they are really basing their new stuff on old stuff or on other disciplines (stick, knife, empty hands) . So unless you can show where NO ONE was doing it before you were, then you have a hard time proving any kind of intellectual property. And even if you do hold the deed to the intellectual property, once you let a student PAY you for it , they now own a piece of it too.....So the only sure way to keep your material proprietary is to NOT teach it.....

Now, back to shooting people for stealing stuff......EVERY class I teach someone says"what? I can't shoot someone who is in my yard stealing my car?" There is an OBVIOUS difference in property crime and physical assault. Again, if the REASONABLE person believed they were in immediate danger of grave bodily injury or death, then the statute is clear. Fire away. The problem is that if they are not posing an imminent threat TO YOU or a 3rd person then you CAN NOT shoot them for committing a crime other than a violent felony.....

Now the gray area comes when you grab your roscoe and run out the door to confront them as they lift your hubcaps. Were you in danger? No. Did YOU actually cause the confrontation? A jury MIGHT say that you did so we need to be very careful about leaving the safety of our house to confront someone. You can always call the cops. Now, if they start to burn down your house or shoot at you through the windows or walls, then yes you are in danger. But until then....you really need to keep that temper under control and call the cops.

You may not like this, but it is reality.

[BigPoppa]

Now the gray area comes when you grab your roscoe and run out the door to confront them as they lift your hubcaps.

Roscoe. That's a funny word for gun that I haven't heard in a while.

Uh-oh, better make sure Glockmeister wasn't the first person ever in recorded history to call it that or we'll all hear about it.

Good post, Randy. And I have mentioned your bacon to a couple of folks.

[Guest jackdog]

To see this from a larger perspective... what if vital food/medical/energy/whatever supplies of a country were regularly pirated by outside marauders, leaving the people wanting? Would that country not be justified in protecting what is theirs with force? Or, should the thefts be simply allowed, since the sovereignty of the country, and the wellness of its people aren't worth a war, because there was no direct attack?

Molon, that kind of fits the illegals crossing the border, collecting free medical, food stamps and some committing violent crimes don't ya think.

As far as laws go, I would sure be favor of the Texas laws myself. Our mamby pamby court system can't seem to solve the problem so maybe we need an option.

[Guest Boomhower]

If I'm not mistaken, this would be TGO's first "instructor's pissing contest". Congratulations guys!!

It's been good to see the true colors of some of you, and also the common sense of some of the other instructors on here to not get involved.

[GLOCKMEISTER]

my appologies... that wasnt my intent. I really tried to be civil. Thus the reason Im trying to let it lie. Again hope I didnt offend... just exercising my God given first amendment right.

Edited March 22, 2008 by GLOCKMEISTER

[Im Neero]

just exercising my God given first amendment right.

Don't let Rabbi see that, or we'll have a whole new tangent to go off on. He thinks they come from the cookie monster.

[strickj]

Well this is not forum about the 1st amendment,this is a forum about the 2nd amendment me kid,me kid

[GLOCKMEISTER]

and... its the 2nd that insures we keep the 1st, and all the rest.

[Marswolf]

There are two kinds of law. Statutory law and case law. Both are equally binding, and case law can radically alter the meaning of a given statute.

JayPee makes a valid point.

I don't know how many of you have seen TV shows, or have been in court, where an attorney mentions another case to the judge where a similar matter came up and reminds the judge of what the ruling was in that other case. That's case law. I think it is going too far to say case law is as binding as statutory law, but precedent does carry weight and is basically binding on lower courts.

But we are currently seeing a case in Heller vs DC where case law has come down on the side of DC for some years in appellate proceedings. But one appellate court ruled differently than the other equal level courts' precedents going back to the constitutional "statute", so we now see SCOTUS settling the matter.

There is a pretty good explanation of this at http://www.lectlaw.com/def2/p069.htm.

The point is that case law, in legal precedents, can change. Generally these precedents are binding on lower courts, but if you can get an equal or higher court to rule differently then you are in business to get the precedent changed. Statutory law only changes when a legislature votes to change it, although court rulings may nullify elements of or whole statutes.

An Attorney General's opinion is just that. It has no legal standing with the courts, but it may be user as a guide by LE and other governing bodies. It may also be wrong.

I might also mention the concept of jury nullification where a jury simply ignores the law and instructions of the judge and brings in a verdict based on what they think is right. That's another can of worms.

[Guest jaypee]

Those are good points Marswolf, and they bear remembering.

The main point I'm trying to make is that case law often defines how a statutory law can be enforced in a given instance, and carries infinitely more weight than personal opinions. So before we weigh in with personal opinions, we need to know how the courts have ruled in these cases and develop our opinions around that legal framework.....especially in cases involving the use or threatened use of deadly force in defense of property since that seems to be an area of great interest in this thread....Otherwise we can reach misleading conclusions in an area where misleading conclusions can put us in conflict with the criminal justice system. On the subject of using deadly force, if an opinion isn't right, it's trouble.

JayPee

[Guest GLOCKGUY]

so can i shoot some one for stealing my lawnmower or not j/k

[Marswolf]

so can i shoot some one for stealing my lawnmower or not j/k

Only if it's a John Deer.

[Guest GLOCKGUY]

Only if it's a John Deer.

"LOL" ya sometimes i wish someone would steal my Murray so i can buy a John Deer

[Guest jaypee]

In the landmark court case of Glock vs. Mower, the mower won. JP

[GLOCKMEISTER]

honestly, we live on 6 acres.. we have a 72in cut John Deer... it makes life in he summer SOOO much easier, and gives me more time to fish too. If I caught someone stealing it.. it would be really hard not to put a cap in their.. well you know.