Hypothetical situation

[ncd2294]

Hello everyone,

So after scaring off two car burglars from stealing my brother's car (used the alarm) recently, it got me wondering.... If they had managed to get the car started and I were to come outside with a firearm and fired, is that legal defense of property or would that be an illegal shooting?

Thanks guys

[trailrunner]

I am not a lawyer!

Everything I've been taught is that you can only use your gun if you are defending yourself or someone else from immediate serious injury or death. Your situation does not meet that standard.

I am not a lawyer!

[Palladin]

+1 trailrunner.

It is sometimes acceptable to shoot someone that is about to kill you or someone else.

I am not a lawyer either.

[dusterdude]

Im not a lawyer either but i believe you cant shoot someone in defense of property,you have to let the thieving scum have your stuff


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Palladin]

Well, you could go talk with him, and see if he wanted to steal your stuff bad enough to kill you for it, then take it from there... J/K

[AlanM]

The above answers are probably correct for most of the country and an excellent rule of thumb.

Just be aware that some states have it in their constitutions, and/or state or case law that use of deadly force is justifiable in the protection of property.
Texas being a prime example.

I suspect that these laws came about due to the fact that stealing a man's horse could cause him and his whole family to starve to death.

Note: My father spent the first years of his life living in a soddy in North Dakota. Every animal they had was essential to their survival.

[ncd2294]

That's what I thought too. Yeah I had heard about Texas allowing it which is what made me wonder if VA was similar.

That is really annoying though. Like dusterdude said, it is quite irritating to basically have to let the scum steal your stuff and you cant do a damn thing about it; except use words to try to scare them away.

Thanks guys!

Now I'm off fork out $200 for a new ignition lock cylinder....

[MarcSpaz]

Do you really want a car full of bullet holes and blood?

[skeeterss0]

if i saw someone in one of my cars attempting to steal it. i would approach them and demand they stop as the wife called 911. The crooks would probably either flee or attack me in which case I am justified in defending myself.

[SpanishInquisition]

Is there a law against shooting your own tires? ;p

[ Post made via Mobile Device ]

[MarcSpaz]

Nope, but there are "unlawful discharge of a firearm" laws

[ Post made via Mobile Device ]

[jdonovan]

I were to come outside with a firearm and fired, is that legal defense of property or would that be an illegal shooting?

In Virginia, 100% illegal. There is __NO__ defense of property with deadly force in this state.

If you were lucky you might get a brandishing charge... If there was a hole in the car then attempted murder wouldn't be out of consideration for the list of charges against you.

[ProShooter]

I were to come outside with a firearm and fired, is that legal defense of property or would that be an illegal shooting?

In Virginia, 100% illegal. There is __NO__ defense of property with deadly force in this state.
.

Agreed. The shooter would most definitely be going to the pokey.

[dorminWS]

If I am not mistaken, VA has a statute that make firing into an occupied vehicle a felony in its own right.

[bryanrheem]

There are better ways to secure your car. The club, while ancient and ugly, works really well.

When I had a car that was a target, I wired a kill switch that interrupted power to the ECU.

[MarcSpaz]

Its funny... I did the same thing. I had a hidden momentary switch tied to a hold down circuit. The button was hidden inside interior padding and I placed it somewhere I could use my body to lean against casually with my body without people noticing, but it was out of the way enough that someone who didn't know it was there couldn't bump it by mistake. It also had a hydro lock. If I was stepping on the brake when the car was turned off, the lockup kit would keep all 4 brake calipers locked so the car couldn't roll.

If someone wanted to steal it, they would have to drag it up a flatbed and even then, it would be with the lights blinking and a siren ringing.

I used to have a business that included doing car audio and security. I shared that concept with a few of my high-end customers. I would say "I'll bet you can't steal my car if I hand you the keys." It's always fun to watch someone try to get the car started

I just thought of a time when shooting someone who is stealing a car may be justified. Though, all of this below is completely opinion I don't recommend trying it.

If you stand in front of the car to block its path and order the person to get off/out of your property and they try to run you over with the car. In a situation like that, you peacefully tried to stop a trespasser/thief and that person is now trying to kill you with the car.

Although technically, for the shooting to be justified, you need to be taking action because your life is in danger, not because the car is being stolen.

[AlanM]

The car I learned to drive on was a 1954 English Ford that my dad bought new in England when we were there. (He was USAF stationed there.)
Dad had wired a kill switch in series with the electric fuel pump and hid it under the dash.
You could get about 3 blocks before the carburetor bowl was dry.
Then again, nobody ever tried to steal that ugly thing.

[jdonovan]

If you stand in front of the car to block its path and order the person to get off/out of your property and they try to run you over with the car. In a situation like that, you peacefully tried to stop a trespasser/thief and that person is now trying to kill you with the car.

You've just assumed the role of aggressor in the confrontation, and your right to deadly force has extinguished with your change in roles.

If the person came at you, you would have to get out of the way, and then they would have to begin to chase you around before you _MIGHT_ be able to reestablish a right to self defense.

The courts have only rarely allowed the reestablishment of right to use deadly force once the confrontation has become a multi-agressor situation. And in those situations the party had to demonstrate a clear and unambiguous intent by both word and deed the desire to separate from the other party, and discontinue the conflict.

[MarcSpaz]

I have to precursor this with the fact that I am not a lawyer, but...

I don't disagree that the court systems frequently unjustly apply the law and punish people who should not be. However, I know for a fact that Federal and Virginia state case law has established "imperfect defense", whereas if a person provokes an attack, they can still use lethal force to defend themselves if they provoked an attack without felonious intent.

Not wanting my car to be stolen and ordering someone off my property with no threat of force or presentation of arms could hardly be considered "felonious intent".

Also, case law in VA allows me as a citizen to arrest someone if I witness them committing a crime, felony or misdemeanor, if the misdemeanor is considered disruption/disturbance of the peace or could lead to disruption/disturbance of the peace.

So, again, I don't think your statements are wrong, but I feel that your response is not the only correct response. People have the natural right to not be a victim.

[dorminWS]

The fly in the ointment any time you try to decide what will happen based upon "what the law says" is that it all depends upon what the facts are found to be by the tribunal. And when you decide what will happen, you base it on what you expect the facts will be; but the facts will be determined by a tribunal based not only upon what YOU say they were, but also upon what the other side and any third party witnesses say they were. Also, the tribunal may not necessarily interpret the applicable law as you did when you decided ahead of time that you'd be on safe ground if you acted in a given manner.

So you should always err on the side of caution. If there is any chance your actions could be cast in a light not favorable to you, it would be best not to act if you can safely avoid doing so. Courts look with great disfavor on people who appear to have been too willing to engage in confrontation.