Is deadly forced justified when construction company trying?

[jmra]

Am I the only one that thinks tearing down your house with you still in it would be at least aggravated assault, if not attempted murder? I guess you could plop yourself down in the house with a rifle and call the police. If the backhoe starts knocking down the house with you in it, you'd seem to be justified in shooting the operator.

I think what most of us are having a problem with is that the construction company would take such action if it were truly your house. They would ensure that they were on firm legal ground before rolling equipment. That means you would be the one committing the illegal act (trespassing).

[SA_Steve]

And the const co. would have long since had the sheriff remove you before the knock down.

[VoiceofReason]

Chances are that if you warned them you would protect your property with deadly force (you have a gun and will use it), they would pack up or park their toys and vanish. Then you would have no reason to shoot.

It then would get straightened out in the courts and the next time they came out they would have all the paperwork and the Sherriff with them.

[The Annoyed Man]

Contrary to the advice above, you could shoot one or two of 'em and see what happens.

Ah yes.... the old "well go ahead then, if you don't believe me" recommendation. I only ask that nobody do anything until I can get a lawn chair and a beer cooler. It would be quite a show.

[EEllis]

Am I the only one that thinks tearing down your house with you still in it would be at least aggravated assault, if not attempted murder? I guess you could plop yourself down in the house with a rifle and call the police. If the backhoe starts knocking down the house with you in it, you'd seem to be justified in shooting the operator.

Somehow we are in the minority.

You may be the only one who thinks there is some real chance it could happen.

[Javier730]

Am I the only one that thinks tearing down your house with you still in it would be at least aggravated assault, if not attempted murder? I guess you could plop yourself down in the house with a rifle and call the police. If the backhoe starts knocking down the house with you in it, you'd seem to be justified in shooting the operator.

Somehow we are in the minority.

You may be the only one who thinks there is some real chance it could happen.

I must have a wild imagination.

http://abcnews.go.com/Business/worth-co ... d=20882129" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

http://m.nydailynews.com/news/national/ ... -1.1452154" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Although rare, things like this do happen. It's not impossible. The Fort Worth incident has the city and construction company playing the blame game.

My imagination is becoming reality. Someone stop me.

[EEllis]

Am I the only one that thinks tearing down your house with you still in it would be at least aggravated assault, if not attempted murder? I guess you could plop yourself down in the house with a rifle and call the police. If the backhoe starts knocking down the house with you in it, you'd seem to be justified in shooting the operator.

Somehow we are in the minority.

You may be the only one who thinks there is some real chance it could happen.

I must have a wild imagination.

http://abcnews.go.com/Business/worth-co ... d=20882129" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

http://m.nydailynews.com/news/national/ ... -1.1452154" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Although rare, things like this do happen. It's not impossible. The Fort Worth incident has the city and construction company playing the blame game.

My imagination is becoming reality. Someone stop me.

Since both cases were houses that were empty I think you do have a wild imagination. Those examples just don't apply.


As an aside what is up with all the "Can't I please shoot them" threads?

[Javier730]

Am I the only one that thinks tearing down your house with you still in it would be at least aggravated assault, if not attempted murder? I guess you could plop yourself down in the house with a rifle and call the police. If the backhoe starts knocking down the house with you in it, you'd seem to be justified in shooting the operator.

Somehow we are in the minority.

You may be the only one who thinks there is some real chance it could happen.

I must have a wild imagination.

http://abcnews.go.com/Business/worth-co ... d=20882129" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

http://m.nydailynews.com/news/national/ ... -1.1452154" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Although rare, things like this do happen. It's not impossible. The Fort Worth incident has the city and construction company playing the blame game.

My imagination is becoming reality. Someone stop me.

Since both cases were houses that were empty I think you do have a wild imagination. Those examples just don't apply.


As an aside what is up with all the "Can't I please shoot them" threads?

The homes were empty but just like millions of other homes in America, they could of easily been occupied.

[EEllis]

The homes were empty but just like millions of other homes in America, they could of easily been occupied.

Because occupied homes get torn down a lot? I mean vacant, trashed out, abandoned looking home sure but you really think companies would tear down a house knowing someone was inside? That they wouldn't knock on a door or check to see if there was a squatter? No offence but thats like saying that you could shoot the guy at the scrapyard if you happen to be in a car that's about to be crushed. I mean there are millions of cars that are occupied so why not one that's about to be crushed......

[Richbirdhunter]

I would have my attorney write them a letter stating, my client will accept "X" amount of dollars. If you do not find his offer satisfactory please contact me through the rest of the legal process

[Blindref757]

Aside from all the legal mumbo-jumbo...lets look at this another way.

You want to take the life of a bulldozer operator who is doing what his boss tells him because he needs to feed his 3 kids at home? You want to make those 3 kids orphans and his wife a widow? You would seriously need to ask this question to us here on the board? You think that would fly in a courtroom? You think a jury would look at you and say, "Yep...that hardworking blue-collar guy needed to die."

[Jumping Frog]

Am I the only one that thinks tearing down your house with you still in it would be at least aggravated assault, if not attempted murder? I guess you could plop yourself down in the house with a rifle and call the police. If the backhoe starts knocking down the house with you in it, you'd seem to be justified in shooting the operator.

Somehow we are in the minority.

You may be the only one who thinks there is some real chance it could happen.

I must have a wild imagination.

http://abcnews.go.com/Business/worth-co ... d=20882129" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

http://m.nydailynews.com/news/national/ ... -1.1452154" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Although rare, things like this do happen.

I already addressed this scenario, and I still stand by my viewpoint that deadly force is not warranted. They aren't going to actually tear down a house with someone still inside it. We are talking defense of property, not self defense. Warning them to leave your property until the mistake gets straightened out is far more reasonable that shooting some guy on a backhoe. Then slap the construction company and/or the local government with a temporary restraining order.

Scenario 2: Mistake. I am aware of instances where a construction company shows up to tear down the wrong house. In this circumstance, I believe ordinary force under PC §9.41 may be justified in the sense of openly carrying a firearm and telling them to wait until the police arrive. Certainly deadly force would not be justified because it fails this test:

PC §9.42(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.

If a construction company mistakenly tears down the wrong house, any reasonable person knows they are going to be liable in court for the damages caused and the monetary damages allows one to recover the value of the property. This isn't some punk stealing your heirlooms at night and fleeing never to be found.

Yes, our legal system takes time and money, but that is still preferable to unnecessarily taking a life.

[Excaliber]

As an aside what is up with all the "Can't I please shoot them" threads?

Exactly.

The valid question (after meeting the legal requirements for deadly force) is: "Is there no other reasonable way to prevent death or serious injury to an innocent person?"

Folks who approach deadly force issues from the "Can I shoot 'im" school of thought should sit down, take a deep breath, and really think that through.

[Zen]

I'm just baffled that "can I shoot" even came up in the scenario "hypothetically" proposed. If you're pondering such use of your weapon, I suggest you lock them all up and reassess and reeducate yourself.

Where does this mentality come from and where does it stop?

Tow truck driver wants to tow my vehicle because it is being repossessed - can I shoot?

Animal control wants to remove my 50 dogs from the home, can I shoot?

My library card was revoked - can I shoot?

Even if the law allows it, one should consider the risks. Sure you can shoot someone who is burglarizing your car at night, but is it worth the potential outcome over some change and a iPod? Without proper risk management, you'll likely find yourself on the losing side even if on the right side of the law. These are individual decisions, though...

[The Annoyed Man]

Folks who approach deadly force issues from the "Can I shoot 'im" school of thought should sit down, take a deep breath, and really think that through.

This.