On Shooting A Car Thief

[bigus_D]

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

My insurance isn't free... but if my car is stolen, my next one will be free.

If you don't want to carry insurance, then your alternative is to shoot the bad guy and then sue him for damages. Good luck with that.

 

[IndyMonkey]

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.



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.

What kind of policy does that fall under?

It doesn fall into my GL policy. That covers theft of material, I have a separate policy that covers tools.

 

[IndyMonkey]

My insurance isn't free... but if my car is stolen, my next one will be free.

If you don't want to carry insurance, then your alternative is to shoot the bad guy and then sue him for damages. Good luck with that.

Your "free" car would be to replace the asset that you had paid for already. It's not free.

Really it's besides the point to not care because you have insurance. You pay a percentage every month to cover other peoples theft/loss.

Hang the car thieves and insurance cost will go down.

 

[bigus_D]

What kind of policy does that fall under?

I'm not exactly sure... I believe it is business continuity... or something like that.

I know the company I work for has it. If all our computers were damaged or stolen, business would stop. The company would be reimbursed for lost profits due to the stoppage of normal business.

I agree that stiffer penalties for actual crime (i.e. non-victim-less crimes) may reduce crime overall, thereby reducing insurance rates for protections against those crimes. Still, I don't advocate taking matters into your own hands, jumping in front of a moving vehicle, and opening fire.

 

[downzero]

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

This is the wrong way to look at it. You either pay an insurance premium and hedge your risk, or you take a risk that you'll lose the total value of a loss if a loss occurs.

Theft is part of life. No amount of law enforcement will eliminate all theft. The key is winning the game of probability.

 

[XMil]

So, how did we get to the fornicated up position where seemingly so many people value the lives of thieves more than the property rights of decent people.

 

[IndyMonkey]

So, how did we get to the fornicated up position where seemingly so many people value the lives of thieves more than the property rights of decent people.

Pussification af America...example, well I hope he knows who he is.

 

[$mooth]

A little twist on it is what would you do if someone was stealing (or beating/threatening) your dog. AFAIK, a dog is considered property in Indiana. I have a small dog (~16lbs) and I would shoot the F***er on the spot. Actually, I'd shoot an animal that was messing with it too, but I'm sure I could be held liable for it.

 

[Blackhawk2001]

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.



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.

How does that equate to "free"?

Here is something else to contemplate. When I was 19 I was driving a taxi in a Chicago suburb. One night a customer robbed me at gunpoint and stole my cab. Used it to hold up a store. Had I been armed, would I have been justified in shooting him before he took off with my cab, knowing he might be using it to rob others (let's disregard the differences between state laws)?

 

[SavageEagle]

A little twist on it is what would you do if someone was stealing (or beating/threatening) your dog. AFAIK, a dog is considered property in Indiana. I have a small dog (~16lbs) and I would shoot the F***er on the spot. Actually, I'd shoot an animal that was messing with it too, but I'm sure I could be held liable for it.

Actually I've heard of a few cases where shooting someone who's beating your dog is justified as long as it was unprovoked on the dog's part. I've even been told that if you're dog or family is attacked by another aggressive dog, you're more than justified in shooting it.

 

[kludge]

My insurance isn't free... but if my car is stolen, my next one will be free.

No, you just pay for it over time.

Insurance companies hire really smart statisticians called "actuaries" to make sure they come out ahead. They don't pay for any stolen cars, the policy holders do. In the end the house wins, otherwise they wouldn't play the game.

If the odds hold, over your lifetime you will pay for every car that you crash and every one that is stolen. And together we will pay for all the agents houses and all their kids college educations too.

 

[kcw12]

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.



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.

That ideology your using is the problem in my opinion. If criminals was put to death for stealing cars, you think we would have so many car thieves? If you hands was cut off do you think we would have that many thieves. I don't and i bet the middle east that cuts off hands don't.

 

[bigus_D]

Pussification af America...example, well I hope he knows who he is.

and a big FU right back at you. If you want to break the law, shoot the bastard stealing your car. Be my guest cowboy.

That ideology your using is the problem in my opinion. If criminals was put to death for stealing cars, you think we would have so many car thieves? If you hands was cut off do you think we would have that many thieves. I don't and i bet the middle east that cuts off hands don't.

My ideology? Please tell me what my idiology is.

The topic here is not the proper punishment for crime. The topic is 'can I legally shoot the SOB?' Furthermore... Are you really suggesting the we should structure our criminal justice system like countries in the middle east?

 

[IndyMonkey]

and a big FU right back at you. If you want to break the law, shoot the bastard stealing your car. Be my guest cowboy.

You must have a guilty consciousness, but I was not talking about you.

 

[Sgt Rock]

It is unlawful to shoot somebody who is stealing an unoccupied vehicle.

With that established, the rest of your questions are moot. Except, perhaps, "how exactly is Forcible Felony defined?"

Then why is it illegal to break into an unoccupied home?

 

[LPMan59]

 

[groovatron]

BTTS.................I think this is more of an issue of defining what "reasonable force" is rather than a forceable felony. "Reasonable force" is very case specific and would most likely be determined my a jury if it went that far. A forceable felony is much more cut and dry. The question really is, "is deadly force resonable force?"

 

[mk2ja]

So, after reading the discussion here, I've formed a possible way of dealing with the situation wherein Person A sees Person B trying to break into Person A's car. For the sake of discussion, let us just say the car is in the driveway of the house where Person A lives.

Person A could announce himself. "Hey! Get away from my car!"
What's Person B, the criminal, going to do? I'd say he's either going to 1) take off running, 2) turn around to face Person A, or 3) jump into the car and try to get it going.

1) If Person B takes off running, problem "solved".

2) If Person B turns to face Person A, he is either going to a) go after Person A, or b) try to talk himself out of it.

a) If Person B goes after Person A, the situation may fall under Subsection (a) of the IC cited previously (in fear of serious bodily harm, use of force, even deadly force, justified).

b) If Person B tries to talk himself out of it, it's either going to end up playing out as option b) above, or as option 1) above that.

3) If Person B jumps into the car and tries to get it going, depending on how close Person A is, he may draw his weapon and approach the door instructing the criminal to terminate his attempt to steal the car and exit the vehicle. I would argue that at this point, Person A is employing the threat of force; deadly force would not come into play unless the weapon was fired, in my mind (IANAL). When Person B exits the vehicle, you're back to either option 1) or 2).


Note that in this scenario, the criminal was not able to get the car away, so it didn't deal with the blocking-his-path/sidestepping issue. I think that it handles the situation in a reasonable manner without breaking the law as cited in the OP.

Comments?

 

[mk2ja]

It is unlawful to shoot somebody who is stealing an unoccupied vehicle.

I was thinking about this some more, and a thought occurred to me. It may end up being a trick a lawyer would pull for which the result could go either way. At any rate, here's the argument:
"Since the criminal was himself in the car being stolen, the vehicle was not unoccupied, therefore, the use of force, even deadly force, is justified under subsection (b)."

The law does not stipulate, though case law and common legal interpretations of which I am not aware may set precedent, that the "occupied motor vehicle" must be occupied by parties not involved in the crime.


Does anybody else think this is an interesting thought? I thought it was.

 

[bigus_D]

Funny, I was thinking the same thing about 'occupied'. The spirit of the law, not neccesarily the literal wording, is what counts however. I'd say that is some REALLY thin ice.