Thief gets shot in the back

[rotor]

If it was a LEO doing the shooting would that be legitimate? "Stop your under arrest" he might yell. I am asking out of curiosity not to make a point.

I didn't get an LTC to protect other peoples property. I got it to protect me and mine.

[Soccerdad1995]

Listen to Jusme.

If a thief gets shot in the back by an LTCer presumably protecting a banks property, that's just way, way off base.

LTCer's aren't L.E.'s unless of course they have an LTC badge...then of course, they're jr. poh-leece-men or women, especially if they sport said badge on their belt. Yes, I'm being sarcastic for you that would like to believe you're some sort of auxiliary L.E...you aren't.

P.S. Carrying a gun comes with a lot of responsibility for you and your families lives, not to prevent a thief from stealing a watch that belongs to some other party...

[Jusme]

If it was a LEO doing the shooting would that be legitimate? "Stop your under arrest" he might yell. I am asking out of curiosity not to make a point.

I didn't get an LTC to protect other peoples property. I got it to protect me and mine.

A LEO knows that there are ways, to return the property through other means. They have radios that can dispatch multiple officers to the scene, along with helicopters, and Rolex sniffing dogs.
Banks have video cameras, to help identify, watch thieves.
So to answer the question, shooting a fleeing, unarmed man, would not be a smart move on the part of a LEO. JMHO

[oljames3]

Listen to Jusme.

If a thief gets shot in the back by an LTCer presumably protecting a banks property, that's just way, way off base.

LTCer's aren't L.E.'s unless of course they have an LTC badge...then of course, they're jr. poh-leece-men or women, especially if they sport said badge on their belt. Yes, I'm being sarcastic for you that would like to believe you're some sort of auxiliary L.E...you aren't.

P.S. Carrying a gun comes with a lot of responsibility for you and your families lives, not to prevent a thief from stealing a watch that belongs to some other party...

[Jusme]

Can't find anything about a suspect, but the shooter talks to the press. Probably not the smartest move, but neither was shooting at someone running away. JMHO

https://www.google.com/amp/s/abc13.com/ ... t/4583801/

[Ruark]

I've never been completely comfortable with the language in this section. From what it says, you are justified in using deadly force to stop theft in the nighttime if:

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.

The first one refers to protecting "land or property": "the land or property cannot be protected ...."

So you're justified in using deadly force to stop theft in the nighttime if the land can't be "protected"? I'm having trouble even coming up with a hypothetical example for that one. Anybody have an example of using deadly force to stop theft in the nighttime when "the land cannot be protected"?

And how do you "recover" land, anyway?

As far as property: so if I see a kid grabbing a lawn sprinkler, and he starts to run off with it, I'm legally justified in blowing his head off, since that's the only way I could recover it. Of course, I would never do this over a sprinkler, but that seems to be what the code is saying. Is there a cite somewhere that clarifies?

It's also vague when "protection" is applied to "property." What's a viable example of using deadly force to "protect" property (as opposed to "recover")?

Would anybody care to discuss?

[Jusme]

I've never been completely comfortable with the language in this section. From what it says, you are justified in using deadly force to stop theft in the nighttime if:

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.

So if I see a kid grabbing a lawn sprinkler, and he starts to run off with it, I'm legally justified in blowing his head off, since that's the only way I could recover it. Of course, I would never do this over a sprinkler, but that seems to be what the code is saying.

The other vague language is i: "the land or property cannot be protected ...."

So you're justified in using deadly force to stop theft in the nighttime if the land can't be "protected"? I'm having trouble even coming up with a hypothetical example for that one.

Would anybody care to dicuss?

One hypothetical, could be if someone was trying to burn buildings, crops, or forrested land. That would fall under the arson portion. Or if they we're using a bulldozer, or something similar to destroy buildings, fences, etc. That would fall under the criminal mischief portion. JMHO

[K.Mooneyham]

You know what would be really nice? If folks would keep their hands off of property that doesn't belong to them. I'd imagine that it might cut down on someone's chances of getting shot while fleeing with stolen property, if they didn't steal said property to begin with. I despise thieves with a passion. They take more than just the tangible property in hand. They are actually stealing time from others because the labor involved to legally acquire said property equates to part of a person's life that will NEVER be recovered, ever. Once that time is gone, it is gone. Someone recently damaged my garage doors trying to take things from inside. I now have to use some of the proceeds of my labor to repair my garage doors, or acquire new garage doors, instead of directing that money elsewhere. I only have so many hours of my life left to earn that money, though of course I cannot know how many hours that may be. Now, flame away at me, my mind won't be changed on the subject. Again, I despise thieves.

EDITED TO ADD:

Note, I did not say I was going to do something such as was done in that story, simply saying I have no pity for thieves.

[03Lightningrocks]

You know what would be really nice? If folks would keep their hands off of property that doesn't belong to them. I'd imagine that it might cut down on someone's chances of getting shot while fleeing with stolen property, if they didn't steal said property to begin with. I despise thieves with a passion. They take more than just the tangible property in hand. They are actually stealing time from others because the labor involved to legally acquire said property equates to part of a person's life that will NEVER be recovered, ever. Once that time is gone, it is gone. Someone recently damaged my garage doors trying to take things from inside. I now have to use some of the proceeds of my labor to repair my garage doors, or acquire new garage doors, instead of directing that money elsewhere. I only have so many hours of my life left to earn that money, though of course I cannot know how many hours that may be. Now, flame away at me, my mind won't be changed on the subject. Again, I despise thieves.

EDITED TO ADD:

Note, I did not say I was going to do something such as was done in that story, simply saying I have no pity for thieves.

Why would anyone here flame away at you for despising a thief? I bet dollars to donuts that nobody here,(short of the two extreme leftists trolling the trump thread), is sympathetic to thieves. The main message I see is that some post they would not blast a guy running away with someones property not their own.