Can I shoot someone breaking into my car?

[FeuerFrei]

Originally posted by: TXHokie
Texas castle law:
- Presumes you are reasonable in using force if someone ? illegally and with force ? enters or is attempting to enter your occupied home, car or workplace.

...so don't even think of wandering in my yard ok? much less my car.

Yeah, but unfortunately they threw the word "occupied" in there, so you cannot unload on someone fiddling with your empty car. =(

 

[imported_DocHolliday]

Originally posted by: Capt Caveman

Originally posted by: DocHolliday
I still fail to understand why people value the lives of others who commit crimes like these. Absolutely mind boggling...

So, we should have the death penalty for anyone that commits a crime?

I would have to say that we are WAYWAYWAYWAYWAY too lenient on criminals...

 

[Zenmervolt]

Originally posted by: Don Vito Corleone
Unless you're inside the car at the time, this is illegal in most or all states. Even then, you'd have to reasonably believe your safety was in danger. You could certainly shoot an armed carjacker, but that's because it's a violent crime and has nothing to do with the potential loss of property.

It would definitely be legal in Texas. In WA, I believe that it is legal to use deadly force to stop a felony from being committed in one's presence as well.

RCW 9A.16.050 (bolding mine):

Homicide is also justifiable when committed either:

(1) In the lawful defense of the slayer, or his or her husband, wife, parent, child, brother, or sister, or of any other person in his presence or company, when there is reasonable ground to apprehend a design on the part of the person slain to commit a felony or to do some great personal injury to the slayer or to any such person, and there is imminent danger of such design being accomplished; or

(2) In the actual resistance of an attempt to commit a felony upon the slayer, in his presence, or upon or in a dwelling, or other place of abode, in which he is.

Also, according to RCW 9A.56.065:

(1) A person is guilty of theft of a motor vehicle if he or she commits theft of a motor vehicle.

(2) Theft of a motor vehicle is a class B felony.

Therefore, per RCW 9A.16.050 and RCW 9A.56.065, it is legal to use deadly force (e.g. shooting) against a person who is attempting to steal your car regardless of immanent threat to your own person. However, questions would certainly be asked and you may even face a trial. However, per RCW 9A.16.110, the state is required to pay your legal bills and associated defense costs (legal wording is "all reasonable costs", and includes loss of time during the case) if you are found innocent by reason of self-defense, which, per RCW, includes defense of property.

ZV

 

[Zenmervolt]

Originally posted by: aigomorla

Originally posted by: Don Vito Corleone
Unless you're inside the car at the time, this is totally illegal. Even then, you'd have to reasonably believe your safety was in danger. You could certainly shoot an armed carjacker, but that's because it's a violent crime and has nothing to do with the potential loss of property.

gun in car and not in truck locked in a box = concealed weapon.

Your gonna get your ass handed on a platter to the DA if you shoot someone in you car.

That depends on the state. In some states that allow open carry, it is legal to have a loaded handgun in a vehicle provided that it is displayed openly (e.g. sitting conspicuously on the passenger seat).

ZV

 

[jonks]

Originally posted by: spidey07

Originally posted by: Don Vito Corleone
Unless you're inside the car at the time, this is illegal in most or all states. Even then, you'd have to reasonably believe your safety was in danger. You could certainly shoot an armed carjacker, but that's because it's a violent crime and has nothing to do with the potential loss of property.

Thankfully most states are moving to making it perfectly legal to protect property.

Thankfully in the overwhelming majority of states it is illegal to shoot someone solely to protect property when there is no danger to the shooter. Illegal as in you will be charged with murder or attempted murder or some variant of assault with a deadly weapon depending on your "success."

Texas for sure, and I believe Florida allow a person to use deadly force to protect property. Above I've seen posted Missouri and Colorado as other states that permit deadly force.

I suggest you be very wary of the statutory interpretations put forth in this thread however. For ex, Zem's interpretation above misreads the justifiable homicide statute. If you shot and killed someone in your driveway trying to steal your car you would not be justified under the statute he cites since there was no danger to the slayer (that's you) or his immediate family. The first sentence says "in lawful defense of the slayer [and family members or other person]..." but doesn't say anything about defense of property. I'm sure the WA 'defense of property' statute lists what amount of force is permitted by law. Without seeing it I cannot say whether deadly force is permitted.

 

[Ns1]

I don't know, but you should be able to. Repeatedly.

 

[Insomniator]

IMO in an ideal situation, you certainly should be able to shoot to kill.

However in this land of people happily giving up their rights, I certainly would not risk being on the wrong end of this lawsuit.

 

[DisgruntledVirus]

Originally posted by: Zenmervolt

Originally posted by: Don Vito Corleone
Unless you're inside the car at the time, this is illegal in most or all states. Even then, you'd have to reasonably believe your safety was in danger. You could certainly shoot an armed carjacker, but that's because it's a violent crime and has nothing to do with the potential loss of property.

It would definitely be legal in Texas. In WA, I believe that it is legal to use deadly force to stop a felony from being committed in one's presence as well.

RCW 9A.16.050 (bolding mine):

Homicide is also justifiable when committed either:

(1) In the lawful defense of the slayer, or his or her husband, wife, parent, child, brother, or sister, or of any other person in his presence or company, when there is reasonable ground to apprehend a design on the part of the person slain to commit a felony or to do some great personal injury to the slayer or to any such person, and there is imminent danger of such design being accomplished; or

(2) In the actual resistance of an attempt to commit a felony upon the slayer, in his presence, or upon or in a dwelling, or other place of abode, in which he is.

Also, according to RCW 9A.56.065:

(1) A person is guilty of theft of a motor vehicle if he or she commits theft of a motor vehicle.

(2) Theft of a motor vehicle is a class B felony.

Therefore, per RCW 9A.16.050 and RCW 9A.56.065, it is legal to use deadly force (e.g. shooting) against a person who is attempting to steal your car regardless of immanent threat to your own person. However, questions would certainly be asked and you may even face a trial. However, per RCW 9A.16.110, the state is required to pay your legal bills and associated defense costs (legal wording is "all reasonable costs", and includes loss of time during the case) if you are found innocent by reason of self-defense, which, per RCW, includes defense of property.

ZV

/thread

ps what state?

 

[jonks]

Originally posted by: Insomniator
IMO in an ideal situation, you certainly should be able to shoot to kill.

However in this land of people happily giving up their rights, I certainly would not risk being on the wrong end of this lawsuit.

In most states you wouldn't be facing a civil law suit if you shot and killed someone stealing your car. You would likely be on trial for some flavor of homicide.

 

[aigomorla]

Originally posted by: spidey07

Originally posted by: videogames101
In most states, you have to have a reasonable belief that the offender is going to seriously harm or kill you or another.

There was a weapon in the vehicle, I feared for my life because if the perp was going for the weapon as he did by breaking into the property his intentions were to harm.

better...
the guy started throwing screw drivers and other sharp objects at me.

As he was reaching for a knife i had to pull the trigger.


i believe in every state, if this happens on your property you can shoot him. :X

 

[jonks]

Originally posted by: Cdubneeddeal
I don't have time to look it up but does anyone know what the law states?

Ok, I read the Washington statutes. Unless you are in the car, you cannot shoot to kill someone who you see breaking into your car. The law is unambiguous in this regard.

 

[Zenmervolt]

Originally posted by: jonks
Zem's interpretation above misreads the justifiable homicide statute. If you shot and killed someone in your driveway trying to steal your car you would not be justified under the statute he cites since there was no danger to the slayer (that's you) or his immediate family. The first sentence says "in lawful defense of the slayer [and family members or other person]..." but doesn't say anything about defense of property. I'm sure the WA 'defense of property' statute lists what amount of force is permitted by law. Without seeing it I cannot say whether deadly force is permitted.

Incorrect. Let's deconstruct section 1 first:

(1) In the lawful defense of the slayer, or his or her husband, wife, parent, child, brother, or sister, or of any other person in his presence or company, when there is reasonable ground to apprehend a design on the part of the person slain to commit a felony or to do some great personal injury to the slayer or to any such person, and there is imminent danger of such design being accomplished

Note the commas. There are two possible readings.

One is that commas are used to set off an entire sub-phrase ("or his or her husband, wife, parent, child, brother, or sister, or of any other person in his presence or company") which contains within itself, a list. That seems to be your reading. However, there are grammatical problems with that reading, as proper usage and overall clarity dictate that such lists be set off with semicolons and not with commas in order to avoid confusion over where the list ends and where the phrase ends.

The second reading is that the phrase is "In the lawful defense of the slayer, or his or her husband, wife, parent, child, brother, or sister, or of any other person in his presence or company" and that "when there is reasonable ground to apprehend a design on the part of the person slain to commit a felony or to do some great personal injury to the slayer or to any such person" is a separate piece that lists two other potential situations in which such force may be justified. As commas in lists indicate "or", section 1 can be rendered as:

"In the lawful defense of the slayer, or his or her husband, OR wife, OR parent, OR child, OR brother, or sister, or of any other person in his presence or company, OR when there is reasonable ground to apprehend a design on the part of the person slain to commit a felony or to do some great personal injury to the slayer or to any such person, and there is imminent danger of such design being accomplished"

In any case, readings of section 1 are irrelevant, as section 2 explicitly grants permission to use deadly force to resist an attempt to commit a felony in the presence of the slayer.

(2) In the actual resistance of an attempt to commit a felony upon the slayer, in his presence, or upon or in a dwelling, or other place of abode, in which he is.

If deadly force can only be used if the felony is against the slayer, then everything after the first comma is un-necessary. Instead, the list continues to explicitly list other situations in which deadly force is justified. Again, as commas in a list indicate "or", section 2 can be rendered as:

"In the actual resistance of an attempt to commit a felony upon the slayer, OR in his presence, or upon or in a dwelling, or other place of abode, in which he is."

ZV

 

[Zenmervolt]

Originally posted by: jonks

Originally posted by: Cdubneeddeal
I don't have time to look it up but does anyone know what the law states?

Ok, I read the Washington statutes. Unless you are in the car, you cannot shoot to kill someone who you see breaking into your car. The law is unambiguous in this regard.

Incorrect. If they continue to persist in the felony attempt, you may confront them and use deadly force if necessary, as I have illustrated.

Please cite which portion of the RCW you are getting your information from.

ZV

 

[Genx87]

I am indifferent about this.

On one hand you have one less worthless human being in society. On the other it is just a car. Call the cops and hope they get there in time.

I would probably just call the cops or at least yell at them from the safety of my home with the hope they run off. Doubtful I would engage them. Just not worth the hassle. Of course I am lucky enough to own a home where I can store my car. They will have to come into my garage to get at it now.

 

[jonks]

Originally posted by: Zenmervolt

Originally posted by: jonks
Zem's interpretation above misreads the justifiable homicide statute. If you shot and killed someone in your driveway trying to steal your car you would not be justified under the statute he cites since there was no danger to the slayer (that's you) or his immediate family. The first sentence says "in lawful defense of the slayer [and family members or other person]..." but doesn't say anything about defense of property. I'm sure the WA 'defense of property' statute lists what amount of force is permitted by law. Without seeing it I cannot say whether deadly force is permitted.

Incorrect. Let's deconstruct section 1 first:

(1) In the lawful defense of the slayer, or his or her husband, wife, parent, child, brother, or sister, or of any other person in his presence or company, when there is reasonable ground to apprehend a design on the part of the person slain to commit a felony or to do some great personal injury to the slayer or to any such person, and there is imminent danger of such design being accomplished

Note the commas. There are two possible readings.

One is that commas are used to set off an entire sub-phrase ("or his or her husband, wife, parent, child, brother, or sister, or of any other person in his presence or company") which contains within itself, a list. That seems to be your reading. However, there are grammatical problems with that reading, as proper usage and overall clarity dictate that such lists be set off with semicolons and not with commas in order to avoid confusion over where the list ends and where the phrase ends.

The second reading is that the phrase is "In the lawful defense of the slayer, or his or her husband, wife, parent, child, brother, or sister, or of any other person in his presence or company" and that "when there is reasonable ground to apprehend a design on the part of the person slain to commit a felony or to do some great personal injury to the slayer or to any such person" is a separate piece that lists two other potential situations in which such force may be justified. As commas in lists indicate "or", section 1 can be rendered as:

"In the lawful defense of the slayer, or his or her husband, OR wife, OR parent, OR child, OR brother, or sister, or of any other person in his presence or company, OR when there is reasonable ground to apprehend a design on the part of the person slain to commit a felony or to do some great personal injury to the slayer or to any such person, and there is imminent danger of such design being accomplished"

In any case, readings of section 1 are irrelevant, as section 2 explicitly grants permission to use deadly force to resist an attempt to commit a felony in the presence of the slayer.

(2) In the actual resistance of an attempt to commit a felony upon the slayer, in his presence, or upon or in a dwelling, or other place of abode, in which he is.

If deadly force can only be used if the felony is against the slayer, then everything after the first comma is un-necessary. Instead, the list continues to explicitly list other situations in which deadly force is justified. Again, as commas in a list indicate "or", section 2 can be rendered as:

"In the actual resistance of an attempt to commit a felony upon the slayer, OR in his presence, or upon or in a dwelling, or other place of abode, in which he is."

ZV

I'll simplify. I'll highlight the relevent part, so just read all the bold as if it were one sentence. (To the extent it boosts my credibility I got an A in crim law which is where you learn to parse criminal statutes.)

1) In the lawful defense of the slayer, or his or her husband, wife, parent, child, brother, or sister, or of any other person in his presence or company, when there is reasonable ground to apprehend a design on the part of the person slain to commit a felony or to do some great personal injury to the slayer or to any such person, and there is imminent danger of such design being accomplished;

This means that, yes, you may use deadly force and homicide is justifiable if a felony is committed in your presence, but only in defense of the slayer (you) or other persons in your presence. You CANNOT use deadly force to stop a felony in your presence if it is not in defense of the slayer or another person, i.e. you cannot shoot someone committing a felony if there is no danger to any person.

So if someone is breaking into your car 50 yards away from you, you can't pull out a gun and start shooting because it would not be in defense of YOU or any other person, it would only be in defense of your car, which is PROPERTY.

 

[jonks]

Originally posted by: Zenmervolt

Originally posted by: jonks

Originally posted by: Cdubneeddeal
I don't have time to look it up but does anyone know what the law states?

Ok, I read the Washington statutes. Unless you are in the car, you cannot shoot to kill someone who you see breaking into your car. The law is unambiguous in this regard.

Incorrect. If they continue to persist in the felony attempt, you may confront them and use deadly force if necessary, as I have illustrated.

Please cite which portion of the RCW you are getting your information from.

http://apps.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=9A.16.020
Use of force ? When lawful.
(3) Whenever used by a party about to be injured, or by another lawfully aiding him or her, in preventing or attempting to prevent an offense against his or her person, or a malicious trespass, or other malicious interference with real or personal property lawfully in his or her possession, in case the force is not more than is necessary;

http://apps.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=9A.16.040
Justifiable homicide or use of deadly force by public officer, peace officer, person aiding.
(2) In considering whether to use deadly force under subsection (1)(c) of this section, to arrest or apprehend any person for the commission of any crime, the peace officer must have probable cause to believe that the suspect, if not apprehended, poses a threat of serious physical harm to the officer or a threat of serious physical harm to others.
(i.e. under the law, even a police officer may only use deadly force where he has probable cause to believe a suspect poses a threat to persons, not property)

And the justifiable homicide statute which we have discussed.

 

[Zenmervolt]

Originally posted by: jonks

Originally posted by: Zenmervolt

Originally posted by: jonks
Zem's interpretation above misreads the justifiable homicide statute. If you shot and killed someone in your driveway trying to steal your car you would not be justified under the statute he cites since there was no danger to the slayer (that's you) or his immediate family. The first sentence says "in lawful defense of the slayer [and family members or other person]..." but doesn't say anything about defense of property. I'm sure the WA 'defense of property' statute lists what amount of force is permitted by law. Without seeing it I cannot say whether deadly force is permitted.

Incorrect. Let's deconstruct section 1 first:

(1) In the lawful defense of the slayer, or his or her husband, wife, parent, child, brother, or sister, or of any other person in his presence or company, when there is reasonable ground to apprehend a design on the part of the person slain to commit a felony or to do some great personal injury to the slayer or to any such person, and there is imminent danger of such design being accomplished

Note the commas. There are two possible readings.

One is that commas are used to set off an entire sub-phrase ("or his or her husband, wife, parent, child, brother, or sister, or of any other person in his presence or company") which contains within itself, a list. That seems to be your reading. However, there are grammatical problems with that reading, as proper usage and overall clarity dictate that such lists be set off with semicolons and not with commas in order to avoid confusion over where the list ends and where the phrase ends.

The second reading is that the phrase is "In the lawful defense of the slayer, or his or her husband, wife, parent, child, brother, or sister, or of any other person in his presence or company" and that "when there is reasonable ground to apprehend a design on the part of the person slain to commit a felony or to do some great personal injury to the slayer or to any such person" is a separate piece that lists two other potential situations in which such force may be justified. As commas in lists indicate "or", section 1 can be rendered as:

"In the lawful defense of the slayer, or his or her husband, OR wife, OR parent, OR child, OR brother, or sister, or of any other person in his presence or company, OR when there is reasonable ground to apprehend a design on the part of the person slain to commit a felony or to do some great personal injury to the slayer or to any such person, and there is imminent danger of such design being accomplished"

In any case, readings of section 1 are irrelevant, as section 2 explicitly grants permission to use deadly force to resist an attempt to commit a felony in the presence of the slayer.

(2) In the actual resistance of an attempt to commit a felony upon the slayer, in his presence, or upon or in a dwelling, or other place of abode, in which he is.

If deadly force can only be used if the felony is against the slayer, then everything after the first comma is un-necessary. Instead, the list continues to explicitly list other situations in which deadly force is justified. Again, as commas in a list indicate "or", section 2 can be rendered as:

"In the actual resistance of an attempt to commit a felony upon the slayer, OR in his presence, or upon or in a dwelling, or other place of abode, in which he is."

ZV

I'll simplify. I'll highlight the relevent part, so just read all the bold as if it were one sentence. (To the extent it boosts my credibility I got an A in crim law which is where you learn to parse criminal statutes.)

1) In the lawful defense of the slayer, or his or her husband, wife, parent, child, brother, or sister, or of any other person in his presence or company, when there is reasonable ground to apprehend a design on the part of the person slain to commit a felony or to do some great personal injury to the slayer or to any such person, and there is imminent danger of such design being accomplished;

This means that, yes, you may use deadly force and homicide is justifiable if a felony is committed in your presence, but only in defense of the slayer (you) or other persons in your presence. You CANNOT use deadly force to stop a felony in your presence if it is not in defense of the slayer or another person, i.e. you cannot shoot someone committing a felony if there is no danger to any person.

So if someone is breaking into your car 50 yards away from you, you can't pull out a gun and start shooting because it would not be in defense of YOU or any other person, it would only be in defense of your car, which is PROPERTY.

You fail to address section 2. And I completely disagree with your interpretation of the first. The grammatical structure simply does not support your reading of it. The entire list uses commas as "or", it's simply illogical to assume that only one of the commas is somehow "special" and not indicative of "or".

ZV

 

[IHateMyJob2004]

I remember back in my car audio days reading about someoent that mounted razorblades behind their stereo so if a theif broke into the car (in a haste) and tried to rip out hte radio his fingers wouold get destroyed.

Well, a theif did try to steal the radio. And the car owner charged with assault.

 

[Zenmervolt]

Originally posted by: jonks

Originally posted by: Zenmervolt

Originally posted by: jonks

Originally posted by: Cdubneeddeal
I don't have time to look it up but does anyone know what the law states?

Ok, I read the Washington statutes. Unless you are in the car, you cannot shoot to kill someone who you see breaking into your car. The law is unambiguous in this regard.

Incorrect. If they continue to persist in the felony attempt, you may confront them and use deadly force if necessary, as I have illustrated.

Please cite which portion of the RCW you are getting your information from.

http://apps.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=9A.16.020
Use of force ? When lawful.
(3) Whenever used by a party about to be injured, or by another lawfully aiding him or her, in preventing or attempting to prevent an offense against his or her person, or a malicious trespass, or other malicious interference with real or personal property lawfully in his or her possession, in case the force is not more than is necessary;

http://apps.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=9A.16.040
Justifiable homicide or use of deadly force by public officer, peace officer, person aiding.
(2) In considering whether to use deadly force under subsection (1)(c) of this section, to arrest or apprehend any person for the commission of any crime, the peace officer must have probable cause to believe that the suspect, if not apprehended, poses a threat of serious physical harm to the officer or a threat of serious physical harm to others.
(i.e. under the law, even a police officer may only use deadly force where he has probable cause to believe a suspect poses a threat to persons, not property)

And the justifiable homicide statute which we have discussed.

The second applies only to peace officers and is not applicable to private citizens, inadmissible.

The first does specifies "malicious interference" and not "felony". This does not prove your point, it only shows that there is a lower threshold for non-deadly force than their is for deadly force (the threshold for the latter being a felony).

ZV

 

[Zenmervolt]

Originally posted by: IHateMyJob2004
I remember back in my car audio days reading about someoent that mounted razorblades behind their stereo so if a theif broke into the car (in a haste) and tried to rip out hte radio his fingers wouold get destroyed.

Well, a theif did try to steal the radio. And the car owner charged with assault.

Setting traps is a separate area under the law. Irrelevant to this discussion.

ZV

 

[Muse]

I agree with the post suggesting installing a car alarm. Are you really that bloodthirsty that you want to shoot someone breaking into your car? Even looking at just your own pain you are going to subject yourself to a gruesome experience that I doubt you will soon recover from.

BTW folks, I hear that statistics bear out that a gun kept in the house for self/property protection is 20 times as likely to be used against that house's inhabitants than an intruder.

 

[Zenmervolt]

In any case, WA is a "stand your ground" state. You have no duty to retreat and are legally allowed to confront a criminal who is attempting to steal your property. If the criminal flees, you cannot pursue them, but if they in turn threaten you, you are justified in defending yourself.

ZV

 

[edro]

When can Deadly Force be used?
- To defend yourself or another person from death or bodily harm

4 Precursors to Deadly Force

Intent - Does the perp have the intent of causing bodily harm? (body language, threats, etc)
Ability - Does the per have the physical ability to do so? (Are they physically strong enough to carry out the threat?)
Opportunity - Can the perp physically do it in the current environment? (Is there a wall between you and him?)
Jeopardy - Are you imminently in jeopardy and cannot escape the situation?


I was taught these in my concealed carry firearm class.

 

[Zenmervolt]

Originally posted by: edro
When can Deadly Force be used?
- To defend yourself or another person from death or bodily harm

4 Precursors to Deadly Force

Intent - Does the perp have the intent of causing bodily harm? (body language, threats, etc)
Ability - Does the per have the physical ability to do so? (Are they physically strong enough to carry out the threat?)
Opportunity - Can the perp physically do it in the current environment? (Is there a wall between you and him?)
Jeopardy - Are you imminently in jeopardy and cannot escape the situation?


I was taught these in my concealed carry firearm class.

That's great. But Ohio is not Washington, and the OP is in Washington.

ZV

 

[Vonkhan]

I'd shoot to protect mah cheeeetoz!!!