Exactly i agree upon the comment above, that is a no no, only in eminent danger of physical harm or any kind as such then you use it, stolen property or vandalism is not bodily physical danger. Yes possibility they could of been armed which you’ll be putting yourself & others at danger by assuming to shoot or not shoot. If have to first make sure if the aggressor is armed or has a weapon that’s by all means to defend. If no weapon is involved or the attacker is not attacking you etc. then you’re asking to get arrested. Personally me, i wouod of called the police. i agree this owner got lucky possibility based on the teens lawlessness or has some friendship ties with law officials, lawyers etc i know some who do right now. Who knows why the owner didn’t get charges or arrested who knows? Lol but i can agree on his lack of training definitely.
Some time you don’t have time to think call the cops but if there is no time l will start shooting
Being from North Carolina and a former Military and civilian Police Officer. Deadly force requires the ability to articulate that you felt that your life was in imminent danger and deadly force was required. In this case since the guns were in the car and their was not an imminent threat of harm to the home owner. Deadly force was not authorized. He is lucky not to have been charged with a felony.
A Kansas trial decision stated these facts:
An officer who makes an arrest without a warrant outside the territorial limits of his jurisdiction must be treated as a private person. His actions will be considered lawful if the circumstances attending would authorize a private person to make the arrest. [Citations omitted.] “It is generally understood a private citizen may arrest another person when a felony has been or is being committed and the person making the arrest has probable cause to believe that the arrested person is guilty thereof; or when any crime has been or is being committed by the arrested person in the view of the person making the arrest. (See K.S.A. 22-2403; 5 Am.Jur.2d, Arrest, § 34, p. 726.)” 218 Kan. at 640.
Since the intruders were not armed and the property owner was armed with a shotgun he was not under the threat of bodily harm and the use of deadly force was unwise–exposing the land owner to arrest and to civil suit.
In Kansas, a wise course of action would have been to attempt a citizen’s arrest, hope to detain the intruders without injury and call the police. If they fled resisting the citizen’s arrest, do not use deadly force but provide police with facts and descriptions.
Each state is different and some do not allow a private citizen to detain another. Check your state law.
Stay in the locked house and call 911. In my state, I would be in jail if I fired rounds into people that were trying to steal my property. Property is replaceable, my life in jail isn’t.
If they try to force entry into the home, that changes everything. I know I don’t want to shoot someone over my property. Not unless that property is directly affecting whether or not I will live or die in that moment.
What would any reasonable person do in the same situation?
I’ll also echo another persons comments on the misery of the court and trial process, not to mention the financial burden. For a car? You’ll spend more in court than the car is worth. No thank you.
I have a different question that I haven’t yet heard answered. Here’s the situation: you’re at home and someone or maybe even a mob is walking past your house. You can identify some bottles with rags coming out the necks. It’s dusk or perhaps a little darker, but you have good reason to believe that one or more people are carrying Molotov cocktails. They’re walking on your lawn toward your house. You do not know these people, but there has been recent unrest in town; you live in the suburbs.
It’s pretty obvious that they aren’t coming to ask for a cup of sugar. One of the Molotov carriers is fiddling with what looks a lot like a cigarette lighter. You happen to. live in a castle doctrine state with no duty to retreat. Your home is certainly flammable and you have an elderly pet inside.
You tell them to stop, but they keep walking, shouting at you that you don’t belong there, that they’ve come to “take what’s [theirs].”
After calling 911, what would you recommend doing? Allowing your house to be set on fire? Or using deadly force to prevent it?
JH
Definitely different State by State. However, one can use deadly force to defend property against commission of a felony in Mississippi. I agree with the other comments though. Call 911 and evaluate the situation. Confronting a threat the farthest from my family is a very high consideration in my mind.
I wish more States would have gun laws such as Mississippi. Here, deadly force can be used against someone committing a felony against me, my property, or someone else. I believe its called the reasonable man concept and you cannot be the initial agressor though.
Issues like yours is what gives me pause as I travel to the surrounding States. They’re all different.
To answer your question, I would have confronted them outside. I do not know if I would’ve shot though.
Mr. DeWitt stated, “The teens left the garage when confronted and were in the driveway. The homeowner was lucky to not face charges.”
There was nothing in the fact pattern that states the teens were in the driveway. The facts state the teens were in the garage. I can’t speak for Kansas but in Texas, the garage is considered part of your home.
Mr. DeWitt also stated, " Seeing as how the two thieves were armed with handguns, going out to confront the teens indicates the homeowner had very little training."
Nowhere in the fact pattern presented does it say the homeowner was aware the teens had handguns in their car. So why criticize the homeowner’s lack of training for something he didn’t know about?
I enjoy reading these Aftermath cases but it helps the reader understand the reasoning behind the decision of police to charge or not charge a homeowner when the facts match Mr. DeWitt’s explanation.
Totally agree. It is situational dependent. I also know the laws where I live. Deadly force would’ve been authorized in Mississippi
A quick google search for MS law on that issue yielded this " In many states, defense of property does not justify the use of lethal force. Although, if the threat of immediate harm extends to a person as well as property, “the defendant’s use of lethal force in Mississippi may be justified based on self-defense or defense of another.”"
That statement seems to warn a reader that in a trial, where one used deadly force for defense of property and asserts that risk also extended to oneself or another, that allegation may be found to be justified at trial. A trial is a very risky and expensive venue to learn one’s actions were not justified.
Hello and welcome @Michael1699
Hello and welcome @Christopher200
Hello and welcome @David1442
I have read the statute and believe its more clear. However, I agree. The lawful gun owner/user is at risk in a trial these days. I certainly need to check my umbrella policy to see if im covered there as well for civil litigation.
I need my car at all time. I keep my shotgun loaded and ready to self defence so i can keep my stuff secure and with me. While i was ready to shoot i will do first call 911 then sound an alarm, turn the lights on, or making some noise… while i am ready to aim and shoot. I will do anything to keep my stuff safe.
I do the very best I can to understand the decision logic of armed citizens such as the person in the anecdote.
Now, for full transparency, I am 1) a former LEO; 2) I have owned and used firearms since age 12 (multiple decades, I assure you).
With that said, I’ve since (over 3 years) participated in >200 hours of didactic and practical self-defense and firearms training. While training can vary from one instructor to another, there are absolute tenets all CCW Citizens must embrace: 1) Firearms are intended to be defensive tools, for the private citizens; 2) We should never have to go anywhere “to get my gun;” 3) Firearms are to protect self, loved ones, and innocents; 4) Never point a firearm at anyone/anything you don’t intend to destroy, and 5) Firearms are not to protect property.
What about the castle doctrine? Which is your property, place of business, vehicle. If an unarmed person was to jump in your vehicle to car jack it you have the right to shoot even though they’re unarmed.
The problem with good citizens is we don’t want to shoot anyone but that hesitation could get you, the good guy injured or killed. A bad guy has no issues to hurt you, good people have no issues to not hurt you. And that’s where lies the issue. More preparation and training is great but in the real deal when adrenaline is pumping sometimes critical thinking isn’t working as well. Being prepared is always necessary, even carrying in the house. Me personally will always be armed from get up in the morning until I lay my head down to sleep and the my weapon is less than a foot away.
Take away from this is ALWAYS be aware of your surroundings, even at home.
Joe
Hello and welcome @Joseph33
- your house is not “flammable” - it is combustible; 2) based on jurisdiction, carrying a Molotov cocktail is likely not to be classified as “presenting imminent danger; 3) in your scenario, would you be able to flee and distance yourself from the threat?