Twin Cities Carry Forum Archive
http://twincitiescarry.com/forum/

Catching someone breaking into your car at home?
http://twincitiescarry.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=12389		 Page 3 of 5
Author:  eLRoy [ Sun Apr 05, 2009 3:11 pm ]
Post subject: 
PocketProtector642 wrote:
rtk wrote:
Stay in the house where you are safe and call 911.

And wait aprox. 45 mins. for the police while he walks away with your stuff knowing no one will catch him.


Um, I can't resist partially correcting this. If you live in Minneapolis or an inner ring city and it's a busy Friday night, and the Police are backed up (i.e. They have more calls pending than they have Officers..) with crimes against persons, then yes, the police will not get there in time to catch the criminal that's stealing a CD player.

If you live in a suburb and it's a typical night (even a Friday), a car break-in that's in-progress will get several squads responding all-out and if they don't catch them in the act, then they very well may catch them with a K-9 track. I've seen it many times.
Author:  White Horseradish [ Sun Apr 05, 2009 4:25 pm ]
Post subject: 
eLRoy wrote:
Um, I can't resist partially correcting this. If you live in Minneapolis or an inner ring city and it's a busy Friday night, and the Police are backed up (i.e. They have more calls pending than they have Officers..) with crimes against persons, then yes, the police will not get there in time to catch the criminal that's stealing a CD player.
Yep. When some drunk wrecked both my parked cars the police came 2.5 hours later. It was a Friday.
Author:  havegunjoe [ Mon Apr 06, 2009 12:57 pm ]
Post subject: 
If you can see the BG from your window why not call 911, hang up, then open the window and shout at the thief that the cops are on the way and he better leave. Most of the time they will run for the hills. Second let’s say you can’t see what’s going on but you suspect a car thief. You call 911 again, give the information and hang up. Now you grab your gun, hold it behind you where it can’t be seen and carefully go to check out what is really going on if you can do so safely. You don’t go out guns-a-blazing. Once again I believe most perps will run for the hills when the lights go on. The gun is only there to protect you if he should attack. I know the reluctant participant argument but I also don’t think you have to sit by and watch someone steal the second most valuable thing you own. You can intervene when someone is in the process of committing a felony.
Author:  mrokern [ Mon Apr 06, 2009 1:09 pm ]
Post subject: 
havegunjoe wrote:
You can intervene when someone is in the process of committing a felony.


GAH! No, you can't!* (*=see below)

Only in your place of abode. Using a firearm to stop a felony outside of your place of abode (which does not include your driveway or yard) will result in you getting arrested and charged.

Of course call 911, I'm even all for yelling at the perps that you've done so. But if you step outside, you're asking for it.

* = Now as Andrew said, is pointing a gun at someone reasonable force? Possibly. Or to be all legal-like..."It depends."

Is your car or CD player really worth risking being Bubba's Friday night date? If your "reasonable force" pointing turns to actual use, it's going to be a rough time.

-Mark
Author:  JimC [ Mon Apr 06, 2009 1:20 pm ]
Post subject: 
The best defense is not to leave anything in your car for them to steal.

And Most cd players have a removable faceplate.
Author:  Macx [ Mon Apr 06, 2009 2:01 pm ]
Post subject: 
Quote:
Only in your place of abode. Using a firearm to stop a felony outside of your place of abode (which does not include your driveway or yard) will result in you getting arrested and charged.
I don't think you have this right.

I think it had been made clear we aren't talking about using the gun to stop the felony in progress. To stop the felony in progress, I suggested using a camcorder and shouting at the guy, it has also been suggested turning on lights and shouting at the guy neither of those will get you arrested. If however, the perp turns on you and puts you in immediate fear of GBH or death and you are not able to retreat despite having that very closable door I mentioned some pages back behind you . . . then you have the same kind of clear cut clean shoot you'd have if say your walking on the street past an alley, in the alley a man is raping a little boy. . . the man spots you and charges toward you with his butcher knife raised and bloody dingaling swaying in the wind in both cases you left your house and came upon a crime in progress, the perp satisfies the legal requirement for a justified bullet not because of the initial felony (arguably) but because he has turned on you and put you in fear of GBH or death while you mode of retreat is somehow unreasonable.
Author:  djeepp [ Mon Apr 06, 2009 2:17 pm ]
Post subject: 
Macx wrote:
Quote:
Only in your place of abode. Using a firearm to stop a felony outside of your place of abode (which does not include your driveway or yard) will result in you getting arrested and charged.
I don't think you have this right.

I think it had been made clear we aren't talking about using the gun to stop the felony in progress. To stop the felony in progress, I suggested using a camcorder and shouting at the guy, it has also been suggested turning on lights and shouting at the guy neither of those will get you arrested. If however, the perp turns on you and puts you in immediate fear of GBH or death and you are not able to retreat despite having that very closable door I mentioned some pages back behind you . . . then you have the same kind of clear cut clean shoot you'd have if say your walking on the street past an alley, in the alley a man is raping a little boy. . . the man spots you and charges toward you with his butcher knife raised and bloody dingaling swaying in the wind in both cases you left your house and came upon a crime in progress, the perp satisfies the legal requirement for a justified bullet not because of the initial felony (arguably) but because he has turned on you and put you in fear of GBH or death while you mode of retreat is somehow unreasonable.


You're forgetting about the reluctant participant part. Probably more relevant in the former situation than the latter. It would be pretty difficult (not that they wouldn't try) for a prosecutor to convince a jury that you could have allowed the man to continue raping the boy and have never been put in harms way.

Yes, if you come out of your house with your pistol holstered and are then subsequently threatened with GBH, you may then defend yourself. However, in this case it would be much easier for said prosecutor to convince your peers that you went looking for and then started a fight.
Author:  mrokern [ Mon Apr 06, 2009 2:20 pm ]
Post subject: 
Macx wrote:
Quote:
Only in your place of abode. Using a firearm to stop a felony outside of your place of abode (which does not include your driveway or yard) will result in you getting arrested and charged.
I don't think you have this right.

I think it had been made clear we aren't talking about using the gun to stop the felony in progress. To stop the felony in progress, I suggested using a camcorder and shouting at the guy, it has also been suggested turning on lights and shouting at the guy neither of those will get you arrested. If however, the perp turns on you and puts you in immediate fear of GBH or death and you are not able to retreat despite having that very closable door I mentioned some pages back behind you . . . then you have the same kind of clear cut clean shoot you'd have if say your walking on the street past an alley, in the alley a man is raping a little boy. . . the man spots you and charges toward you with his butcher knife raised and bloody dingaling swaying in the wind in both cases you left your house and came upon a crime in progress, the perp satisfies the legal requirement for a justified bullet not because of the initial felony (arguably) but because he has turned on you and put you in fear of GBH or death while you mode of retreat is somehow unreasonable.


I may have misread advice above as someone walking out with a gun in hand. Turning on lights, calling 911, shouting...all good ideas. Your scenarios...again, would legally meet requirements (assuming you could convince prosecutor / jury that you had no mode of retreat).

My point was that using a gun simply to stop a felony without immediate fear of GBH or death is a bad idea at best.

-Mark
Author:  Selurcspi [ Mon Apr 06, 2009 2:32 pm ]
Post subject: 
I'd call 911 and after hanging up, I'd brighten Juniors day with 1,000,000 candle power spotlight. If he turns but doesn't run keep the light on his face, he'll probably get the picture, If not have someone take one for him!
Author:  Macx [ Mon Apr 06, 2009 5:48 pm ]
Post subject: 
djeepp wrote:
Macx wrote:
Quote:
Only in your place of abode. Using a firearm to stop a felony outside of your place of abode (which does not include your driveway or yard) will result in you getting arrested and charged.
I don't think you have this right.

I think it had been made clear we aren't talking about using the gun to stop the felony in progress. To stop the felony in progress, I suggested using a camcorder and shouting at the guy, it has also been suggested turning on lights and shouting at the guy neither of those will get you arrested. If however, the perp turns on you and puts you in immediate fear of GBH or death and you are not able to retreat despite having that very closable door I mentioned some pages back behind you . . . then you have the same kind of clear cut clean shoot you'd have if say your walking on the street past an alley, in the alley a man is raping a little boy. . . the man spots you and charges toward you with his butcher knife raised and bloody dingaling swaying in the wind in both cases you left your house and came upon a crime in progress, the perp satisfies the legal requirement for a justified bullet not because of the initial felony (arguably) but because he has turned on you and put you in fear of GBH or death while you mode of retreat is somehow unreasonable.


You're forgetting about the reluctant participant part. Probably more relevant in the former situation than the latter. It would be pretty difficult (not that they wouldn't try) for a prosecutor to convince a jury that you could have allowed the man to continue raping the boy and have never been put in harms way.

Yes, if you come out of your house with your pistol holstered and are then subsequently threatened with GBH, you may then defend yourself. However, in this case it would be much easier for said prosecutor to convince your peers that you went looking for and then started a fight.


Not forgetting reluctant participant at all. Please re-read the post.
Quote:
Call 911, break out the camcorder . . . go film the guy, follow him updating the police (via cell) and get the plate on camera if he runs to a getaway car. You aren't assaulting him and if he attacks you can certainly retreat or if retreat isn't possible and his attack is sufficient. . . plug the guy.
from page 1. A camcorder is NOT a gun. A camcorder in one hand and a cell phone in the other. .. . I think I mentioned in one of the other posts having to drop the camera to draw a weapon . . . so HOW is reluctant participant not met, should the bad guy turn on you and demand (with actions you reasonably believe put you at risk of GBH or death) to be shot (wherein you can't reasonably retreat please refer to bold in quote above because it is obviously better if the bad guy is banging on your door trying to get the film, when the cops roll up. . . but I mentioned that too)

Quote:
My point was that using a gun simply to stop a felony without immediate fear of GBH or death is a bad idea at best.
Mark, you are absolutely right.
Author:  Prhyme [ Mon Apr 06, 2009 6:28 pm ]
Post subject: 
Great discussion guys! As a new P2C holder, I appreciate the insight and wisdom of you old-timers :D . In lieu of creating a new thread, I thought I would post a couple questions:

1. Understanding that retreat (and never being there in the first place) is the best option, can one safely assume that a BG with a drawn gun pointing at innocents constitutes fear of GBH? I'm thinking of the recent shooting in New York and some of the church shootings. Would you wait for them to start pulling the trigger just to be sure of intent?

2. This one is a legal question because I already know what most fathers would do, but my 8-year old daughter posed a very perceptive question when we were discussing gun laws. Does a attempted kidnapping constitute fear of GBH? - ie. perp breaks into the house to snatch a kid and gets shot in the process.
Author:  Macx [ Mon Apr 06, 2009 7:11 pm ]
Post subject: 
Good questions.

1. Some chuches use a mace as a "badge of office" for a particular person in the ceremony. A mace (especially one fairly ornate and perhaps oversized) can't be reliably perceived as a weapon being brandished with intent to do GBH or kill folk. A gun on the other hand has two very specific purposes inside a church, either to go on a rampage or to stop one. You are not required by law to give the bad guy a first shot, you are not required to try and talk them down or to say "drop your weapon or I'll shoot" Recently there was a fella in a Burger King (FL I think) that got shot up & killed the armed robber . . . from the sound of it, he did the talking that let the perp do the shooting & paid for it in holes and medical bills.

2. Does a ____________ constitute fear of GBH? Is one of those questions that can only be answered by a specific jury for a specific individual. You look at the stats for children who make it home safely Vs. the number that don't, from a kidnapping and get a ratio. What is the probability of letting the kidnapper take my daughter and getting her back alive? Slim? Nil? Even custodial kidnappings end up with a surprising number of dead bodies. Would a rational person roll a dice weighted that heavily toward a dead child and let the kidnapper escape with child in tow? I'd rather roll my dice with a jury than a kidnapper, even if it goes wrong. . . like completely sideways, my child is safe with her mother. With a kidnapper, even if everything goes right and it is like a great episode of Without a Trace there are too many chances for too much to go wrong. You've no doubt heard the old saw, "I'd rather be judged by 12 than carried by 6" . . . well, I'd rather be judged by 12 than chance a kidnapper not bringing my daughter back safe or that he'd roll a car running from the cops and make my flawless angel a quadriplegic, or that it would end up in a hostage thing and the police sniper would screw up and put a round through my daughter, or . . . . you get the drift.
Author:  MostlyHarmless [ Mon Apr 06, 2009 9:25 pm ]
Post subject: 
djeepp wrote:
You're forgetting about the reluctant participant part. Probably more relevant in the former situation than the latter. It would be pretty difficult (not that they wouldn't try) for a prosecutor to convince a jury that you could have allowed the man to continue raping the boy and have never been put in harms way.

Yes, if you come out of your house with your pistol holstered and are then subsequently threatened with GBH, you may then defend yourself. However, in this case it would be much easier for said prosecutor to convince your peers that you went looking for and then started a fight.


"Reluctant participant" is a convenient yet somewhat inaccurate shorthand that many instructors like to use. The term does not appear in the statutes and, as far as I know, does not appear in any important published decisions involving use of lethal force in self-defense.

What the statute requires is that one's actions be reasonable. It's a squishy area of law without clear boundaries, some would say by design. The response we're discussing, in a nutshell, is:
a) observe theft in progress
b) turn on lights, call 911, appoach intruder while armed
c) hope in vain that this concludes the criminal episode
d) receive threat of GBH instead
e) respond to genuine fear of GBH with lethal force when no reasonable alternative (e.g. retreat) exists
IANAL but I don't see where there is a problem with that, as such, as far as the law is concerned. There are plenty of pitfalls and things could end badly, though to some degree that's true with any use of force in self-defense. In my opinion the perceived appropriateness of such a response would vary depending on the profile of the DGUser in the community and the nature of the community. If you're a 50-something member of the Lion's club in, say, Beltrami county I don't think there would be much prosecutive interest and I doubt if a jury would be likely to convict. If you're a 22 year old construction worker with a DUI on your record in Ramsey county, matters would be rather more touchy.
Author:  mnglocker [ Tue Apr 07, 2009 12:54 am ]
Post subject: 
There's an easy way to get the cops there faster, while talking to dispatch, clamly tell them that "it's okay, I've got my .45 and a shovel". You'll think those crown vics have warp drive.
Author:  JonL [ Tue Apr 07, 2009 9:29 pm ]
Post subject: 
mnglocker wrote:
There's an easy way to get the cops there faster, while talking to dispatch, clamly tell them that "it's okay, I've got my .45 and a shovel". You'll think those crown vics have warp drive.

...And then get a chance to learn what "making terroristic threats" means. :(
8)
Page 3 of 5 All times are UTC - 6 hours
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group
http://www.phpbb.com/