In Kenosha, WI: Carjacking victim to be charged with endangering attacker?

[Johnny Rico]

Aren't there still some states that insist you retreat from your home rather than allow you to use deadly force against an intruder?

A misunderstood aspect of the Duty to Retreat is that you are only required to retreat if you can do so safely.

[TomMcC]

They're just teens right? Tell that to this dead uber eats driver folded in half on sidewalk.





https://www.m4carbine.net/showthread...er-Eats-Driver


Go ask the South Africans what the consequences are when you arent allowed to protect your property.

There is no law that I know of that prevents you from protecting your property with the appropriate force. If a guy is trying to steal my car, as far as I know, I can intervene to stop that. I just can't go to a 12 ga SG with double OO buck from the git go. Maybe I can hold him with the SG? Is your body worth more than your car? Mine is. BUT, if a man or women attacks me with their fists, I can't just whip out my Roscoe and end the assault, unless maybe the guy or gal is 400 lbs of pure muscle (a disparity of force). Looting usually has different laws applied to it, doesn't it?

[utahjeepr]

There is no law that I know of that prevents you from protecting your property with the appropriate force. If a guy is trying to steal my car, as far as I know, I can intervene to stop that. I just can't go to a 12 ga SG with double OO buck from the git go. Maybe I can hold him with the SG? Is your body worth more than your car? Mine is. BUT, if a man or women attacks me with their fists, I can't just whip out my Roscoe and end the assault, unless maybe the guy or gal is 400 lbs of pure muscle (a disparity of force). Looting usually has different laws applied to it, doesn't it?

You are absolutely within your rights to stand in the way and resist a crime being committed. To put it in terms of the OP, had the owner been standing in the door he could resist the thief. If the thief became violent or otherwise caused the owner to fear for his life/safety, THEN deadly force would be justified. Had the owner (not that I would recommend this) jumped in front of the car to stop the thief and then shot him, THAT would probably be justified.

Shooting at a car driving away from you, as tempted as I might be to do so, is not justifiable self defense. The only way to justify that would be if you could show you were acting to stop an EMINENT threat to others. Is dude about to run down a nun and a flock of orphans? Light him up. Did you hear dude say, "imma swoop this ride an then head to Koreatown for some bumper tag"? That ain't eminent.

Dude breaks into your occupied home, that constitutes a threat in and of itself. You have every reason to fear death or serious injury. Dude wants to take your stuff, you have every right to tell him to eat shit. If he escalates, BOOM.

It is a right of self defense, not defense of property. You are absolutely within your legal rights to stand in front of your property and say, "NO!". If the criminal continues, then it becomes an attack on your person. "Duty to retreat" does not take the act of criminal escalation into account, and is almost certainly unconstitutional. That said, I don't wanna be the defendant that challenges the law on appeal.

[TomMcC]

You are absolutely within your rights to stand in the way and resist a crime being committed. To put it in terms of the OP, had the owner been standing in the door he could resist the thief. If the thief became violent or otherwise caused the owner to fear for his life/safety, THEN deadly force would be justified. Had the owner (not that I would recommend this) jumped in front of the car to stop the thief and then shot him, THAT would probably be justified.

Shooting at a car driving away from you, as tempted as I might be to do so, is not justifiable self defense. The only way to justify that would be if you could show you were acting to stop an EMINENT threat to others. Is dude about to run down a nun and a flock of orphans? Light him up. Did you hear dude say, "imma swoop this ride an then head to Koreatown for some bumper tag"? That ain't eminent.

Dude breaks into your occupied home, that constitutes a threat in and of itself. You have every reason to fear death or serious injury. Dude wants to take your stuff, you have every right to tell him to eat shit. If he escalates, BOOM.

It is a right of self defense, not defense of property. You are absolutely within your legal rights to stand in front of your property and say, "NO!". If the criminal continues, then it becomes an attack on your person. "Duty to retreat" does not take the act of criminal escalation into account, and is almost certainly unconstitutional. That said, I don't wanna be the defendant that challenges the law on appeal.

Yeah, I would agree with this whole heartedly.

[sandsunsurf]

I think it would depend on the developing scenario and the lay out of your house. I've thought about it a bunch considering my lay out. A 2 story home. If the burglar is staying downstairs and stealing things, I'm not going down there. I have home owners insurance for that. I will be locked and loaded at the top of the stairs, 911 called. IF he starts up the stairs, he's done. I really really am trying to make it through life without killing someone, I don't see killing someone for material stuff (biblically speaking). Fearing for my life, that's the big demarcation.

As long as I have the superior position and situation (i.e. not outnumbered or walking into a triangulated position) I’m going downstairs to protect my property and my HOME. You have every moral right to defend your castle, and if a state has a law that prohibits that, then that is a state not worth residing in.

[sandsunsurf]

You are absolutely within your rights to stand in the way and resist a crime being committed. To put it in terms of the OP, had the owner been standing in the door he could resist the thief. If the thief became violent or otherwise caused the owner to fear for his life/safety, THEN deadly force would be justified. Had the owner (not that I would recommend this) jumped in front of the car to stop the thief and then shot him, THAT would probably be justified.

Shooting at a car driving away from you, as tempted as I might be to do so, is not justifiable self defense. The only way to justify that would be if you could show you were acting to stop an EMINENT threat to others. Is dude about to run down a nun and a flock of orphans? Light him up. Did you hear dude say, "imma swoop this ride an then head to Koreatown for some bumper tag"? That ain't eminent.

Dude breaks into your occupied home, that constitutes a threat in and of itself. You have every reason to fear death or serious injury. Dude wants to take your stuff, you have every right to tell him to eat shit. If he escalates, BOOM.

It is a right of self defense, not defense of property. You are absolutely within your legal rights to stand in front of your property and say, "NO!". If the criminal continues, then it becomes an attack on your person. "Duty to retreat" does not take the act of criminal escalation into account, and is almost certainly unconstitutional. That said, I don't wanna be the defendant that challenges the law on appeal.

I wish there was a simple +1 button… this is accurate and concise.

[T2C]

You are absolutely within your rights to stand in the way and resist a crime being committed. To put it in terms of the OP, had the owner been standing in the door he could resist the thief. If the thief became violent or otherwise caused the owner to fear for his life/safety, THEN deadly force would be justified. Had the owner (not that I would recommend this) jumped in front of the car to stop the thief and then shot him, THAT would probably be justified.

Shooting at a car driving away from you, as tempted as I might be to do so, is not justifiable self defense. The only way to justify that would be if you could show you were acting to stop an EMINENT threat to others. Is dude about to run down a nun and a flock of orphans? Light him up. Did you hear dude say, "imma swoop this ride an then head to Koreatown for some bumper tag"? That ain't eminent.

Dude breaks into your occupied home, that constitutes a threat in and of itself. You have every reason to fear death or serious injury. Dude wants to take your stuff, you have every right to tell him to eat shit. If he escalates, BOOM.

It is a right of self defense, not defense of property. You are absolutely within your legal rights to stand in front of your property and say, "NO!". If the criminal continues, then it becomes an attack on your person. "Duty to retreat" does not take the act of criminal escalation into account, and is almost certainly unconstitutional. That said, I don't wanna be the defendant that challenges the law on appeal.

I agree with most of your post. The vehicle owner could use reasonable force to prevent the theft of his vehicle, such as grabbing the driver or other non-lethal use of force. If the thief takes action that would require a response in which deadly force would be justified, i.e. presented a knife, displayed a firearm or drove away, then steered a course in an attempt to run over the vehicle owner, deadly force would likely be appropriate.

If you create the circumstances that would place you in a position where you are in reasonable apprehension of great bodily harm or death, i.e. jump in front of a moving vehicle to prevent theft, you would likely face criminal charges for applying deadly force. It's been a while since I've seen the Florida courts case cite. I will attempt to find the cite and post a link.

[TomMcC]

As long as I have the superior position and situation (i.e. not outnumbered or walking into a triangulated position) I’m going downstairs to protect my property and my HOME. You have every moral right to defend your castle, and if a state has a law that prohibits that, then that is a state not worth residing in.

I'm just not interested in killing someone over a TV. In California, you can defend your castle, legally you can do that, but house clearings are pretty dangerous, and, again, I don't want blood on my hands for mere property if I can avoid it. If they were trying to boost the brand new Bronco I have on order...well...that might be different. LOL

[26 Inf]

Minnesota is one of those states, the homeowner has a duty to retreat. Personally I consider a criminal entering an occupied home is enough of a threat to justify the use of lethal force if necessary, but the state says otherwise.

Did this pass? Minnesota Castle Doctrine Bill - https://www.senate.mn/departments/sc...?ls=91&id=7048

I believe this was previous statute:


609.06 AUTHORIZED USE OF FORCE.

Subdivision 1.When authorized.

Except as otherwise provided in subdivisions 2 and 3, reasonable force may be used upon or toward the person of another without the other's consent when the following circumstances exist or the actor reasonably believes them to exist:

(1) when used by a public officer or one assisting a public officer under the public officer's direction:

(i) in effecting a lawful arrest; or

(ii) in the execution of legal process; or

(iii) in enforcing an order of the court; or

(iv) in executing any other duty imposed upon the public officer by law; or

(2) when used by a person not a public officer in arresting another in the cases and in the manner provided by law and delivering the other to an officer competent to receive the other into custody; or

(3) when used by any person in resisting or aiding another to resist an offense against the person; or

(4) when used by any person in lawful possession of real or personal property, or by another assisting the person in lawful possession, in resisting a trespass upon or other unlawful interference with such property; or

(5) when used by any person to prevent the escape, or to retake following the escape, of a person lawfully held on a charge or conviction of a crime; or

(6) when used by a parent, guardian, teacher, or other lawful custodian of a child or pupil, in the exercise of lawful authority, to restrain or correct such child or pupil; or

(7) when used by a school employee or school bus driver, in the exercise of lawful authority, to restrain a child or pupil, or to prevent bodily harm or death to another; or

(8) when used by a common carrier in expelling a passenger who refuses to obey a lawful requirement for the conduct of passengers and reasonable care is exercised with regard to the passenger's personal safety; or

(9) when used to restrain a person with a mental illness or a person with a developmental disability from self-injury or injury to another or when used by one with authority to do so to compel compliance with reasonable requirements for the person's control, conduct, or treatment; or

(10) when used by a public or private institution providing custody or treatment against one lawfully committed to it to compel compliance with reasonable requirements for the control, conduct, or treatment of the committed person.

Subd. 2.Deadly force used against peace officers.

Deadly force may not be used against peace officers who have announced their presence and are performing official duties at a location where a person is committing a crime or an act that would be a crime if committed by an adult.

Subd. 3.Limitations on the use of certain restraints.

(a) A peace officer may not use any of the following restraints unless section 609.066 authorizes the use of deadly force to protect the peace officer or another from death or great bodily harm:

(1) a choke hold;

(2) tying all of a person's limbs together behind the person's back to render the person immobile; or

(3) securing a person in any way that results in transporting the person face down in a vehicle.

(b) For the purposes of this subdivision, "choke hold" means a method by which a person applies sufficient pressure to a person to make breathing difficult or impossible, and includes but is not limited to any pressure to the neck, throat, or windpipe that may prevent or hinder breathing, or reduce intake of air. Choke hold also means applying pressure to a person's neck on either side of the windpipe, but not to the windpipe itself, to stop the flow of blood to the brain via the carotid arteries.



609.065 JUSTIFIABLE TAKING OF LIFE.

The intentional taking of the life of another is not authorized by section 609.06, except when necessary in resisting or preventing an offense which the actor reasonably believes exposes the actor or another to great bodily harm or death, or preventing the commission of a felony in the actor's place of abode.

History:

1963 c 753 art 1 s 609.065; 1978 c 736 s 1; 1986 c 444

[Skyviking]

The word is, IMMINENT”, not “EMINENT”.