Though you mentioned it, you pretty much dismissed the significance of (3)(A). If (3)(A) is met, (3)(B) is not required. And with the low recovery rates for stolen property, it seems a reasonable case could be made for (3)(A) any time a BG is fleeing with property.speedsix wrote:MasterOfNone wrote:When addressing defense of property, the question is whether a threat to the property exists. This is why the statutes specifically require that a fleeing thief have property before using deadly force.redlin67 wrote:Seems to me that the homeowner was wrong in using a weapon in this case. The suspect fled, even though it was in the homeowners stolen vehicle, so no theat. Time to call 911 and let the LEO handle it. I agree, not enough information given.
Too often we hear that "no threat exists because the actor was not in danger" disregarding the threat to the property being the justification when protecting property.
...before using deadly force to recover property, we must meet 9:42, and 9:42(3)(B) specifically says "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." whether protecting property against a listed crime or trying to recover property, after meeting the other requirements in 9:42, the question becomes whether a threat to the actor is present while he's using deadly force to protect or recover the land or property...in this case the deadly force protects the ACTOR as he tries to recover the property...if they say that "no threat exists because the actor was not in danger" they are correct if the actor hasn't met 9:42(3)(B)...that's where one could get into trouble...if I'm chasing after a burglar immediately after the crime, I must meet (3) (A) or (3)(B)...and if his hands are full of TV and he has no weapon...I may have a hard time convincing a grand jury that I "reasonably believed" that (B) applies...and that's what this actor will have to do...convince the Grand Jury that the above was his situation...
Otherwise, under what circumstances would you see a person justified in using deadly to stop someone from fleeing with property?