Here is the a portion of the video…
1 Like
Thanks - That actually seems like a pretty solid answer and is helpful to me. Particularly:
“…the intent of the USCCA legal protection is to be there for you when you have to legally defend your physical self-defense actions.”
Very helpful caveat.
1 Like
I guess I’m happy that I live in Alabama where it seems we can confront a thief. I can find no statue that prevents this here. It appears there is no brandishing law as well. If memory serves me there was a fairly recent case where a family, whose home had been burglarized days earlier, surrounded the suspects vehicle, with guns drawn, and held them for the local law. No charges against the family. Please understand I am NOT saying people should do this, but it seems normal that one would confront a thief caught in the act and to be prepared to defend. Of course I am from Alabama, and our state motto is “We dare defend Our Rights”
added: Here;'s the story I referenced: Jefferson County homeowners hold suspected burglars at gunpoint until lawmen arrive - al.com
3 Likes
He never pointed the gun at anyone. That kinda makes me feel a little different. That being said, if the thief had a gun, the home owner may have escalated that situation in a really bad way. A package on the front door does not equal an AR.
Brad is right here. Concealed is always the best option. I’d have pepper sprayed his butt in a heart beat. Recently I put OC spray by our front door just in case. It’s cheap, and I can keep it out of the kids reach without locking it up.
It’s great that the get away driver floored it 
, wonder why the thief decided to stick around… if he was smart he’d have ran out of there… but if he was smart, he’d also not be stealing packages… hope they leaned a lesson!
1 Like
3 Likes
Where I live, the homeowner would have committed crimes and most likely been arrested.
You simply cannot defend property with deadly force.
4 Likes
Nor should you!
2 Likes
Actual comment by a possible left-leaning person:
“ Gee I hope whatever was in that package was worth threatening someone’s life over. And if it was, maybe he should have brought it in immediately, or had arrangements made to require signature on receipt. Yeah, sorry, my left lean is showing.”
I’m left wondering if the porch pirate asked himself if the package was worth dying for. 
5 Likes
Both parties were wrong…
Porch pirate should not be… Well porch pirating. It’s wrong & though petty, it’s still a crime. Clearly, you ran up on the wrong ( and possibly fed up) homeowner. Was that random Amazon package (or whatever it was) worth it?
The homeowner… Clearly you live in a different state than I do. Here, you would’ve been charged. I’m gonna reach here & say that you have been the victim multiple times or perhaps your family or neighbors have. You are probably tired of your stuff being pirated. I understand.
These are trying times. Everybody is on edge. Think before you act.
6 Likes
His ride gtfo.
1 Like
Best friends no more 
2 Likes
Porch pirating same as looting and being a democrat!
Very dangerous to trespass and commit burglary in time of war.
Make no mistake we are and have been at war. Act appropriately!
If I’m considered a terrorist, because I believe in this country, then porch pirates are enemy combatants.
Furthermore, if politicians can kill people and hide that fact, I can protect my castle from ALL enemies foreign and domestic!
As in all things if the enemy is aware of the potential harm, maybe a moron can be taught to respect his neighbors!
These days, they increased the tension that at least 76,000,000,000 average Americans are feeling. Democrats created this environment, it’s what I call true climate change!
More power to the homeowner, prevent climate change! I’m sure any democrat worth a turd is on board with any type of climate change!
We have been too loving and forgiving when it comes to criminals!
These are “gateway” crimes! First the package, then the car, then breaking and entering and before you know it “you’ve” created a bonafide criminal!
3 Likes
The way I view the video, the homeowner never raised the firearm to take aim at the criminal. Therefore, at least here in Florida, he would be within his rights to be on his property and openly carrying his firearm. Several other States have similar laws based on the Castle Doctrine. Here he was legally armed to protect himself because he had no idea whether or not the criminal was armed and could attempt to injure the homeowner while fleeing.
Let’s say you just finished cleaning your firearm and you just reloaded it before putting it in ready storage (secure point for home defense access). As you are heading to put the firearm away, you notice a trespasser on your property so you walk out to confront the criminal but you continue to openly carry your firearm for you personal defense. As long as you do not leave your personal property or take aim when there is no immediate threat of bodily harm or death, you are within your legal rights. If you are in a place where you can not do these things to defend yourself, get out. Find a place to live where you can be safe not only from threats by criminals, but also ridiculous infringements on your right to life, liberty, and happiness.
3 Likes
Still foolish. Doesn’t matter. Just foolish.
1 Like
I’d check with a local attorney on the legality of this. Not familiar enough with FL to comment. Wouldn’t fly in OH.
2 Likes
Looks to me like he was hunting a baited stand…
I am NOT excusing theft, but seems to be a disparity of force to me. If he saw the pirate, he most likely knew the package was there. I do my best to prevent or avoid confrontation, especially when armed.
5 Likes
I’m just gonna say it. If you all choose to flame / mod / whatever me, then do it.
I’m with the guy with the rifle. As a nation we grow tired of petty crime not being prosecuted, emboldening the rest of the little rats to do more, larger crimes. And because of PEARL CLUTCHING GASPS we can’t do anything about it? We must remain meek compliant citizens?
No.
Just from reading this thread I can tell we’re beat, as a nation. Will you appeasers and pacifists be this tame when the blue helmets come? Or when the Chinese are invited in to “fix the gun problem?”
Im not saying put a bullet in the perp’s head, but do implant a notion that crime, no matter how little, will no longer go un-answered. Maybe after seeing a resident with a big scary gun the little perp rat will think twice before stealing again.
And that’s my take. I’m not a lawyer, I’m just an American TIRED of all this pussyfooting politically correct BS that I see reflected in this thread.
What would all you pacifiers / appeasers do? Let the miscreant go? I bet you would. “ohhhhh, their disaaaaaaadvaaaaantaaaaaged life” IS that an excuse to go after others’ properties? I bet it is, in the minds of many reading this thread. “Give me my reh-puh-ray-tionsssssss!”
Today, your Amazon box. 2 years from now, “Give me your house beacuz reh-puh-ray-tions” Will you cower and let them have it because property isn’t worth defending?
How about hog-tying the perp securely and then getting the cops in? Oh, we can’t do that, because Po-Lice Bruh-Tah-Li-TAY
Do you people not see the circular logic in all this?
FIRE ALL SOROS DAs.
5 Likes
That is already happening in Seattle and Portland, I think.
3 Likes
Here’s a cut and paste from Florida Concealed Carry Gun Laws & CWL: USCCA CCW Reciprocity Map(Last Updated 09/03/2020) (usconcealedcarry.com):
I have read many times that this extends to the entire private property of your home or business, i.e. your yard, but I have never been able to extract this from the Florida statutes except under emergency conditions. I do not have the time to search for those statues at this time.
I now know more about FL SYG than I probably need to know. One thing that strikes this “non attorney”, is the language which clearly reflects : 776.013(2)(a) The person against whom the defensive force was used or threatened was in the process of unlawfully and forcefully entering, or had unlawfully and forcibly entered, a dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle, or if that person had removed or was attempting to remove another against that person’s will from the dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle; andemphasized text
(b) The person who uses or threatens to use defensive force knew or had reason to believe that an unlawful and forcible entry or unlawful and forcible act was occurring or had occurred.
True the perp was trying to abscond with a package but the other elements of the statute are absent!
1 Like