On Shooting A Car Thief

[dross]

You bet it is.

Interesting. To me, if you were forced to fire to protect yourself or someone else because of the actions of a bad guy, all the liability should fall on the bad guy unless the good guy shooter (whether cop or civilian) was grossly negligent.

If I were only running the world.

 

[wtfd661]

If I were only running the world.

You got my vote, but unfortunately we have the Obama's and lawyers ruining (running) this world and thats why there is no longer common sense.

 

[junglerogue]

It's all in the articulation, which is why you WANT to have an attorney present, when you give any statement (including a LEO giving a use of force statement). As soon as the BG steps in the car, its reasonable to believe that he is going to use YOUR car in any way possible to facilitate his escape. BG has no vested interest in the value of your car long term. Given that, it's reasonable to believe that the BG will "use or threaten use of force against a human being(you), or in which there is imminent danger of bodily injury to a human being (getting run over by YOUR car)". To further the argument during trial, I'd almost say that it's better that you place yourself in front of your vehicle (with the expectation that this visual sign would stop any "normal/reasonable" person). Reason being that the BG will almost likely disregard your verbal commands and physical presence, giving you further credence that your use of lethal force was indeed justified.
With that being said, I'm pretty sure that a vehicle is/can be classified as a deadly weapon in the commission of a felony, although I don't have the specific code. In regards to the second question, why shoot just tires and/or radiator? You shoot to neutralize the threat, not stop the vehicle. Also, you may be found not guilty of the actual criminal offense (with concern to stray bullets), however you may lose everything with civil liability suit. This goes for LEO too (another +bonus to think about).

 

[junglerogue]

I think the courts are screwed up in that too, if you sue or bring a case to trial, ALL fees and expenses should be paid by the loser. Europe is that way. That's gotta stop some of the frivolous law suits.

 

[singlestacksig]

you can not use deadly force , or any force , as "self defense" to keep someone from fleeing..
once they start to leave you might be able to arrest them, but you can not use deadly force unless it becomes a self defense situation again.

 

[Denny347]

Is that also true for cops? If your ricochet hits someone, but you were legal in every other way, are you or your employer liable?

You bet I am resposible. That is a road I have no desire to travel.

 

[mk2ja]

you can not use deadly force , or any force , as "self defense" to keep someone from fleeing..
once they start to leave you might be able to arrest them, but you can not use deadly force unless it becomes a self defense situation again.

If he is driving away in my car, I would argue that he is not "fleeing", but rather he is still committing the felony of stealing my car. He's not trying to get away from a fight (compare to a home invader who you chase out the front door and he jumps into his own car), he's still in the very act of stealing my car, and the law says I can use force (subsection (c) in my OP) to terminate the commission of that crime.

 

[singlestacksig]

https://www.indianagunowners.com/fo...2927-cases_that_help_define_use_of_force.html

 

[singlestacksig]

If he is driving away in my car, I would argue that he is not "fleeing", but rather he is still committing the felony of stealing my car. He's not trying to get away from a fight (compare to a home invader who you chase out the front door and he jumps into his own car), he's still in the very act of stealing my car, and the law says I can use force (subsection (c) in my OP) to terminate the commission of that crime.

But it is not a SD situation anymore..
It is an arrest situation , and you can not use lethal force.. And you do not have immunity from lawsuits.
Yes you can use some force to make an arrest.. NOT deadly force.. Shooting at a fleeing car is deadly force..

If you run out and stand in the road, you are allowed to try to get them to stop.. If they d ive right at you, then it SD situation.

 

[junglerogue]

Which is why you would might want to consider stepping into the path of your "fleeing" vehicle. 1, it tells the BG that he does not have authorization to operate YOUR vehicle and 2, better supports your use of deadly force as you were in fear of being run over. Articulation, articulation, articulation... have a good explanation (i.e. lawyer up) that is reasonable, true, and substantiated by the facts.

 

[bigus_D]

I will stick myself out on a limb here and say that it is inadvisable to step in front of a vehicle that is being stolen.

A. Do you REALLY want to shoot somebody over a car? Its just a car after all.
B. Do you REALLY want to clean up brains out of your car? Imagine what that does to the value of your property!
C. You DO have insurance, right? Your stolen car will be replace for free... OK maybe you have to cover the deductible.
D. Even if you shoot the SOB... that car is still coming straight for you. This isn't the movies, as soon as you hit the driver, the car isn't necessarily going to suddenly veer to the right, go over the curb, flip over, skid off a cliff, and burst into flames.

 

[Sailor]

Good people go to jail all the time for doing the right thing.
Even if its legal, it does not always make it the right thing to do. Civil lawsuits can ruin you.

I am not shooting anyone over property.

 

[thompal]

Based on that article and my interpretation of the IC, you could shoot them if driving at you in your car, but it would be hard to justify if all you had to do was sidestep. Yes there is no duty to retreat, but I would rather lose my truck then go to jail.

I'm not sure I'd want to go down the "sidestep" road.

If that is claimed or applied in court, it won't be long before the "all you had to do was sidestep" standard will be applied to every case of self-defense.

Why did you shoot the attempted murderer? All you had to do was duck.

Why'd you shoot the rapist? All you had to do was keep your legs together.

Why'd you shoot the mugger? All you had to do was run.

And so forth. . . . .

 

[dsol]

A. Do you REALLY want to shoot somebody over a car? Its just a car after all.

They used to hang horse thieves....

 

[IndyMonkey]

They used to hang horse thieves....

I had a truck stolen in November that cost me about 18k in work.

It may be property that some don't need, without my truck I can't feed my family.

Hang them high, make an example.

 

[downzero]

I will stick myself out on a limb here and say that it is inadvisable to step in front of a vehicle that is being stolen.

A. Do you REALLY want to shoot somebody over a car? Its just a car after all.
B. Do you REALLY want to clean up brains out of your car? Imagine what that does to the value of your property!
C. You DO have insurance, right? Your stolen car will be replace for free... OK maybe you have to cover the deductible.
D. Even if you shoot the SOB... that car is still coming straight for you. This isn't the movies, as soon as you hit the driver, the car isn't necessarily going to suddenly veer to the right, go over the curb, flip over, skid off a cliff, and burst into flames.

Agreed 100%.

I'm not killing someone over a piece of property. I have insurance.

 

[SavageEagle]

I will stick myself out on a limb here and say that it is inadvisable to step in front of a vehicle that is being stolen.

A. Do you REALLY want to shoot somebody over a car? Its just a car after all.
B. Do you REALLY want to clean up brains out of your car? Imagine what that does to the value of your property!
C. You DO have insurance, right? Your stolen car will be replace for free... OK maybe you have to cover the deductible.
D. Even if you shoot the SOB... that car is still coming straight for you. This isn't the movies, as soon as you hit the driver, the car isn't necessarily going to suddenly veer to the right, go over the curb, flip over, skid off a cliff, and burst into flames.

A. No. I don't ever WANT to shoot someone.
B. No, not really, but you gotta do what you gotta do. If that's a custom interior....
C. Not everyone is blessed with Full Coverage insurance. Liability doesn't cover stolen property and a civil suit (IF they catch him) is going to be pointless if the guy is stealing cars.
D. I've been hit by a car going 20mph. It's not that bad. Above that, yea, that would hurt. However, seeing my car veer, flip, skid, then explode would TOTALLY be worth the aftermath.

And as IndyMonkey pointed out, your vehicle is not just "replaceable property". If someone stole our van tonight, my family would be screwed. I'm not walking 6 miles one way to get groceries or 30 miles one way to get to the doctor with kids. And have you ever went job hunting on a bicycle? Not a lot of employers are willing to hire some sweaty, stinky guy off the street that obviously has no reliable transportation.

 

[kludge]

Which is why you would might want to consider stepping into the path of your "fleeing" vehicle. 1, it tells the BG that he does not have authorization to operate YOUR vehicle and 2, better supports your use of deadly force as you were in fear of being run over. Articulation, articulation, articulation... have a good explanation (i.e. lawyer up) that is reasonable, true, and substantiated by the facts.

Step in front of a fleeing vehicle? The cost of doing that is far too high.

I'd rather step into the path of a 115gr bullet going 1100fps. At least I'd have a chance of living. If not, my wife has something to bury.

Sure, with my mad skillz I could take out his brain stem at 40mph, even when he ducks behind the dash, but then who is going to stop the car?

 

[kludge]

C. You DO have insurance, right? Your stolen car will be replace for free... OK maybe you have to cover the deductible.

Where are you getting your free insurance? I want some of that.

 

[bigus_D]

They used to hang horse thieves....

That was when not having a horse could cost you your life. Also, they used to cut the hands off of thieves. Adultery is punishable by stoning in some places even today.
Doesn't make it right.

I had a truck stolen in November that cost me about 18k in work.

It may be property that some don't need, without my truck I can't feed my family.

Hang them high, make an example.

Don't you carry business insurance? Proper insurance should cover any and all loses associated with a theft, including profits lost as a direct result of theft.


All of that said... even if hanging is the proper punishment for theft, that doesn't mean that vigilante justice is called for.