Page 1 of 2
Would this situation you be Justified in Shooting
Posted: Mon Jul 18, 2016 10:03 am
by lildave40
A friend of mine just took his LTC class and was told about a situation if he would shoot. The scenario goes. " your at the ATM and a guy comes up to rob you. He gets your wallet and is running away" Are you in your rights to shoot him while he is running away? My thoughts on this is no you cannot shoot him as the threat is no longer there. My friend feels the same as I do but the instructor says you have the right to shoot him as he has your information and can now bring harm to you at your home. I would like to hear your thoughts on this. As I cannot shoot a person running away even if he has my information.
I wait your replies and thank you in advance.
Re: Would this situation you be Justified in Shooting
Posted: Mon Jul 18, 2016 10:21 am
by Pawpaw
Yes, I believe you would be justified.
PC §9.42. DEADLY FORCE TO PROTECT PROPERTY. A person is justified in using deadly force against another to protect land or tangible, movable property:
(1) if he would be justified in using force against the other under Section 9.41; and
(2) when and to the degree he reasonably believes the deadly force is immediately necessary:
(A) to prevent the other’s imminent commission of arson, burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, theft during the nighttime, or criminal mischief during the nighttime; or
(B) to prevent the other who is fleeing immediately after committing burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, or theft during the night¬time from escaping with the property; and
(3) he reasonably believes that:
(A) the land or property cannot be protected or recovered by any other means; or
(B) the use of force other than deadly force to protect or recover the land or property would expose the actor or another to a substantial risk of death or serious bodily injury.
Re: Would this situation you be Justified in Shooting
Posted: Mon Jul 18, 2016 10:27 am
by goose
Pawpaw wrote:Yes, I believe you would be justified.
PC §9.42. DEADLY FORCE TO PROTECT PROPERTY. A person is justified in using deadly force against another to protect land or tangible, movable property:
(1) if he would be justified in using force against the other under Section 9.41; and
(2) when and to the degree he reasonably believes the deadly force is immediately necessary:
(A) to prevent the other’s imminent commission of arson, burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, theft during the nighttime, or criminal mischief during the nighttime; or
(B) to prevent the other who is fleeing immediately after committing burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, or theft during the night¬time from escaping with the property; and
(3) he reasonably believes that:
(A) the land or property cannot be protected or recovered by any other means; or
(B) the use of force other than deadly force to protect or recover the land or property would expose the actor or another to a substantial risk of death or serious bodily injury.
But only during the nightime as I understand it. Definition of nightime aside. In daylight it does not appear legal. There is also the issue of whether or not cash can be recovered by other means. Yes, I realize it would be like getting blood from a beet in civil court.
Re: Would this situation you be Justified in Shooting
Posted: Mon Jul 18, 2016 10:29 am
by lildave40
I guess I should have been more specific. If he robs you at the ATM During the Daytime.
Re: Would this situation you be Justified in Shooting
Posted: Mon Jul 18, 2016 10:30 am
by Pawpaw
goose wrote:Pawpaw wrote:Yes, I believe you would be justified.
PC §9.42. DEADLY FORCE TO PROTECT PROPERTY. A person is justified in using deadly force against another to protect land or tangible, movable property:
(1) if he would be justified in using force against the other under Section 9.41; and
(2) when and to the degree he reasonably believes the deadly force is immediately necessary:
(A) to prevent the other’s imminent commission of arson, burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, theft during the nighttime, or criminal mischief during the nighttime; or
(B) to prevent the other who is fleeing immediately after committing burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, or theft during the night¬time from escaping with the property; and
(3) he reasonably believes that:
(A) the land or property cannot be protected or recovered by any other means; or
(B) the use of force other than deadly force to protect or recover the land or property would expose the actor or another to a substantial risk of death or serious bodily injury.
But only during the nightime as I understand it. Definition of nightime aside. In daylight it does not appear legal. There is also the issue of whether or not cash can be recovered by other means. Yes, I realize it would be like getting blood from a beet in civil court.
Nope, that's only "theft during the nighttime". The others do not have the nighttime restriction.
Look at (A) above it, which is worded exactly the same way. Does it make sense that you can't defend yourself from aggravated (read: armed) robbery during the day?
Re: Would this situation you be Justified in Shooting
Posted: Mon Jul 18, 2016 10:33 am
by vjallen75
As paw paw pointed out, legally yes it's justified. Whether you could sleep at night is purely something you would have to deal with.
Would I shoot him if he was running away, that would depend on other variables. If your life is not in immediate danger, just be a good witness.
Re: Would this situation you be Justified in Shooting
Posted: Mon Jul 18, 2016 10:37 am
by ScottDLS
The situation described sounds like ROBBERY, not theft. So you could shoot during daytime. And depending on how violent the person was in getting the wallet away, I might very well shoot him. I assume you just didn't give him your wallet.
Re: Would this situation you be Justified in Shooting
Posted: Mon Jul 18, 2016 10:49 am
by Keith B
ScottDLS wrote:The situation described sounds like ROBBERY, not theft. So you could shoot during daytime. And depending on how violent the person was in getting the wallet away, I might very well shoot him. I assume you just didn't give him your wallet.
in part. The OP stated 'comes up to rob you'. So, if it met this definition:
Code: Select all
Sec. 29.02. ROBBERY. (a) A person commits an offense if, in the course of committing theft as defined in Chapter 31 and with intent to obtain or maintain control of the property, he:
(1) intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly causes bodily injury to another; or
(2) intentionally or knowingly threatens or places another in fear of imminent bodily injury or death.
then it is justifiable. If they pick your pocket and run off with your wallet, then it is NOT robbery, but just theft and would only be as PawPaw stated.
Re: Would this situation you be Justified in Shooting
Posted: Mon Jul 18, 2016 10:49 am
by ralewis
ScottDLS wrote:The situation described sounds like ROBBERY, not theft. So you could shoot during daytime. And depending on how violent the person was in getting the wallet away, I might very well shoot him. I assume you just didn't give him your wallet.
Seems if somebody threatens you to hand over your wallet thats robbery. But is having your pocket picked theft or robbery? I guess i was always under the impression that if there was contact or forcible removal, that's probably robbery. Like ripping a purse away or pulling a wallet out of your pocket.
Re: Would this situation you be Justified in Shooting
Posted: Mon Jul 18, 2016 10:51 am
by Keith B
ralewis wrote:ScottDLS wrote:The situation described sounds like ROBBERY, not theft. So you could shoot during daytime. And depending on how violent the person was in getting the wallet away, I might very well shoot him. I assume you just didn't give him your wallet.
Seems if somebody threatens you to hand over your wallet thats robbery. But is having your pocket picked theft or robbery? I guess i was always under the impression that if there was contact or forcible removal, that's probably robbery. Like ripping a purse away or pulling a wallet out of your pocket.
We were posting at the same time. See the definition of robbery in my post above
Re: Would this situation you be Justified in Shooting
Posted: Mon Jul 18, 2016 10:54 am
by ralewis
Keith B wrote:ralewis wrote:ScottDLS wrote:The situation described sounds like ROBBERY, not theft. So you could shoot during daytime. And depending on how violent the person was in getting the wallet away, I might very well shoot him. I assume you just didn't give him your wallet.
Seems if somebody threatens you to hand over your wallet thats robbery. But is having your pocket picked theft or robbery? I guess i was always under the impression that if there was contact or forcible removal, that's probably robbery. Like ripping a purse away or pulling a wallet out of your pocket.
We were posting at the same time. See the definition of robbery in my post above
Yup. I guess in this case it would come down to being able to articulate if you felt threatened. Seems to me just picking your pocket or picking a piece of your property up and running off wouldn't meet the robbery threshold.
Re: Would this situation you be Justified in Shooting
Posted: Mon Jul 18, 2016 11:11 am
by ScottDLS
I was also thinking about difference between pickpocketing and say strong arm robbery or armed robbery.
Re: Would this situation you be Justified in Shooting
Posted: Mon Jul 18, 2016 11:12 am
by mojo84
goose wrote:Pawpaw wrote:Yes, I believe you would be justified.
PC §9.42. DEADLY FORCE TO PROTECT PROPERTY. A person is justified in using deadly force against another to protect land or tangible, movable property:
(1) if he would be justified in using force against the other under Section 9.41; and
(2) when and to the degree he reasonably believes the deadly force is immediately necessary:
(A) to prevent the other’s imminent commission of arson, burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, theft during the nighttime, or criminal mischief during the nighttime; or
(B) to prevent the other who is fleeing immediately after committing burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, or theft during the night¬time from escaping with the property; and
(3) he reasonably believes that:
(A) the land or property cannot be protected or recovered by any other means; or
(B) the use of force other than deadly force to protect or recover the land or property would expose the actor or another to a substantial risk of death or serious bodily injury.
But only during the nightime as I understand it. Definition of nightime aside. In daylight it does not appear legal. There is also the issue of whether or not cash can be recovered by other means. Yes, I realize it would be like getting blood from a beet in civil court.
Don't ignore the "or". The language afterwards adds theft during the night.
Re: Would this situation you be Justified in Shooting
Posted: Mon Jul 18, 2016 12:08 pm
by goose
mojo84 wrote:goose wrote:Pawpaw wrote:Yes, I believe you would be justified.
PC §9.42. DEADLY FORCE TO PROTECT PROPERTY. A person is justified in using deadly force against another to protect land or tangible, movable property:
(1) if he would be justified in using force against the other under Section 9.41; and
(2) when and to the degree he reasonably believes the deadly force is immediately necessary:
(A) to prevent the other’s imminent commission of arson, burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, theft during the nighttime, or criminal mischief during the nighttime; or
(B) to prevent the other who is fleeing immediately after committing burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, or theft during the night¬time from escaping with the property; and
(3) he reasonably believes that:
(A) the land or property cannot be protected or recovered by any other means; or
(B) the use of force other than deadly force to protect or recover the land or property would expose the actor or another to a substantial risk of death or serious bodily injury.
But only during the nightime as I understand it. Definition of nightime aside. In daylight it does not appear legal. There is also the issue of whether or not cash can be recovered by other means. Yes, I realize it would be like getting blood from a beet in civil court.
Don't ignore the "or". The language afterwards adds theft during the night.
I guess my hesitation (not likely called for, I would probably agree) is that as the OP stated it they are running away. When is a person running away no longer a threat? When might it become a shot to protect property instead of protecting ones self? Are they three feet away and we're still more or less engaged or are they 30 feet away? Curious about everyone's thoughts. This is a good discussion.
Re: Would this situation you be Justified in Shooting
Posted: Mon Jul 18, 2016 12:16 pm
by mojo84
goose wrote:mojo84 wrote:goose wrote:Pawpaw wrote:Yes, I believe you would be justified.
PC §9.42. DEADLY FORCE TO PROTECT PROPERTY. A person is justified in using deadly force against another to protect land or tangible, movable property:
(1) if he would be justified in using force against the other under Section 9.41; and
(2) when and to the degree he reasonably believes the deadly force is immediately necessary:
(A) to prevent the other’s imminent commission of arson, burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, theft during the nighttime, or criminal mischief during the nighttime; or
(B) to prevent the other who is fleeing immediately after committing burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, or theft during the night¬time from escaping with the property; and
(3) he reasonably believes that:
(A) the land or property cannot be protected or recovered by any other means; or
(B) the use of force other than deadly force to protect or recover the land or property would expose the actor or another to a substantial risk of death or serious bodily injury.
But only during the nightime as I understand it. Definition of nightime aside. In daylight it does not appear legal. There is also the issue of whether or not cash can be recovered by other means. Yes, I realize it would be like getting blood from a beet in civil court.
Don't ignore the "or". The language afterwards adds theft during the night.
I guess my hesitation (not likely called for, I would probably agree) is that as the OP stated it they are running away. When is a person running away no longer a threat? When might it become a shot to protect property instead of protecting ones self? Are they three feet away and we're still more or less engaged or are they 30 feet away? Curious about everyone's thoughts. This is a good discussion.
The law doesn't it just limit it to being threatened. The law, sections quoted above, explains one can legally shoot to protect property in certain instances. Whether one choses to do so is up to each individual.