The Glade 4.0

Ok, if I understand correctly, deadly force can not be used in defense of property (ie. someone snatch/grabs Oonagh's purse and I am carrying, I can not shoot said person dead)

What if, in defense of your property after it has been stolen, you place yourself in a position where deadly force can now be used? To clarify what I mean and further to my scenario, if I chase said thief, get in a confrontation and a knife is pulled on me, am I now justified in meeting that with deadly force?

I know I have put myself in that scenario by trying to confront the thief, but do I have the right to get into that situation since I am trying to rightfully take back what is mine (Oonagh's)?

Again, purely hypothetical. This hasn't happened to me or anyone I know, it is just something that came to mind.

_________________
This must be Thursday. I could never get the hang of Thursdays.

Benefit of the doubt should be yours. If villain has a deadly weapon in his hand, you'll be fine, with a few exceptions.

Exceptions might include if he had a baseball bat and you shot him at 50 yards. Or if he was shot in the back.

If you want to chase your property, you can. If you are threatened, go nuts.

Don't try for an excuse to shoot him, though. Just try to get your property back.

Yes it should be legal if he is armed. I don't like the government saying that you can't shoot armed and dangerous criminals.

BUT, you should value life and only take someone's as a last resort. Legally though I think it should be allowed.

Hmm, it depends. Is the purse-snatcher wearing a hoodie at the time? This is, I think, the most salient legal distinction.

Yes, but armed not with Skittles and Arizona Iced tea; rather Starburst and a Pepsi.

_________________
This must be Thursday. I could never get the hang of Thursdays.

I've seen Starburst commercials. Those **** can unleash a devastating tidal wave of flavor. Shoot to kill before it happens.

It depends a lot on the state you are in. You can certainly defend your property with non-deadly force in most states; i.e. you can punch the hypothetical purse-snatcher in the nose. If he then pulls a knife, and you pull a gun and shoot him, in most places you'll be within your rights.

Even when chasing him, if your only intent was to subdue the thief and/or recover the purse, you'd still be ok. The problems start to arise once people become aware that you chased him while in posession of a gun. Even if he never knew you had a gun at all until he pulled the knife out, there will always be a "blame the victim" crowd that will claim he was "in fear of his life" because you had a gun, without regard to what you actually did with the gun. Therefore, be really careful not to reveal the gun.

Now, if he's in the process of snatching the purse and you shoot him, you might be able to simply claim "He was attacking my wife." After all, to you that's exactly what it looks like. This is especially true if he has the knife out, says anything threatening, etc.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

ALOL. We need more Hellfire posts like this.

_________________
"Aaaah! Emotions are weird!" - Amdee
"... Mirrorshades prevent the forces of normalcy from realizing that one is crazed and possibly dangerous. They are the symbol of the sun-staring visionary, the biker, the rocker, the policeman, and similar outlaws." - Bruce Sterling, preface to Mirrorshades

Ugh. Yeah, I hear ya, but I'd be more inclined to show the gun in an effort to get him to surrender rather than having to chase him down and risk a physical confrontation that I could lose. Then, if he doesn't surrender, maybe chase him.... No, I wouldn't shoot him if he ran with my wife's purse.

Just as long as you don't shoot them in the back and they have a weapon you should be fine. There also has to be intent, if he is coming after you with the knife, it is a clean kill. IF he is just standing there...like a deer in head lights. If there is a witness you better hope they like you.

_________________
Raell Kromwell

As far as I am concerned, those that prey on other people should be shot.

Don't wanna get shot? Don't **** rob people.

_________________

Holy shitsnacks!

If someone tries to kill you, you kill them right back.

_________________
Raell Kromwell

See, the problem is that if you show the gun, he runs, and then you chase him and end up shooting him it becomes possible to argue that you provoked the armed part of the confrontation. In this case I hope there's a lot of witnesses and you have a really good lawyer.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

Oh, I get that, but see my point? IF I'm willing to chase him and tussle to get my stuff back, I'd RATHER just point the gun at him (with no intent to fire) and have him surrender. IF he doesn't, THEN chase and tussle. But yes, then it's already escalated.

I just don't like fair fights.

I thought that if you brandish the weapon with intent to deescalate the situation and then end up having to use it to take a life, that could be seen as an intent to kill or premeditation.

_________________
This must be Thursday. I could never get the hang of Thursdays.

I see your point just fine. From a purely "get the purse back" standpoint, I agree. However, I imagine you'd prefer to also not get arrested for manslaughter or murder afterwards. The fundamental fact is that appearances dictate what witnesses will say. We see it in the Martin/Zimmerman case with these two idiot women who didn't see a thing, but make claims about what they heard based on information they learned after the fact.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

It could, depending on what the other person was doing. If the other guy already pulled out his knife, then no. The bottom line is that if you pull a gun, you need to have a valid reason to actually use the gun, or expect to use it imminently. Other people can't read your mind; they don't know that you want to "de-escalate".

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

There is no brandishing law in Pa - the word has no legal meaning.

As long as you pursue the person to a place where you have legal right to be (IE not someone else's private property) if you believe you or another person will suffer grave bodily injury,sexual assault, death, or kidnapping - you're justified in using deadly force.

That is strictly legally speaking - what picture the media, the investigators, the DA, the prosecutor want to paint - and the political leanings of the judge and jury in question is entirely another.

_________________
"...but there exists also in the human heart a depraved taste for equality, which impels the weak to attempt to lower the powerful to their own level and reduces men to prefer equality in slavery to inequality with freedom." - De Tocqueville

If you believe another person will suffer grave bodily injury,sexual assault, death, or kidnapping because the perp is fleeing is not the same as him fleeing with a purse he snatched.

More importantly, you need to be able to articulate WHY you would think that. For example, he has a gun and he runs into a school during school hours would be an excellent reason. The more facts you can articulate as to why you thought deadly force was necessary, the better.

As for "brandishing" there's no brandishing law in Ohio either. "Brandishing" is used to mean what it normally means in everyday usage. Brandishing isn't important as a crime in and of itself, it's important in establishing that you were engaging in behavior that you had a right to engage in. It does not have to have a legal meaning in order to be very important in establishing that you were within your rights.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

As others have said, it varies greatly on the law of the particular state and the details of the particular situation. These blog posts are a good general starting point for understanding the concepts behind the self-defense defense generally, which may be helpful in understanding what the particular laws you're dealing with will actually require:

Volokh Conspiracy 3/24

Volokh Conspiracy 4/2 Note: NSFW title (n-word) in bold print

Volokh Conspiracy 4/3

Good essays, although his part about the "risks" of lethal self defense is more than a bit overblown.

The risk of someone claiming to have been attacked and then lethally "defending themself" when no witnesses are present ignores the problem of physical evidence even in the absence of other witnesses, and furthermore, requires that both people encounter each other in a place they have a legal right to be, but where no one else is, and then for there to be a plausible reason for the victim to have attacked the murderer. It would be very, very hard to pull off.

The "Stary bullets" thing is possible, but generally when this has happened in the past, it has been the result of criminals shooting at each other without much regard for the niceties of fire discipline, not law-abiding people defending themselves. It largely ignores that law-abiding citizens wishing to carry guns almost always have at least basic training in how to handle them, and one of the most basic instructions is "know what's beyond your target." Theoretically its possible, but in reality it's rare, its a product of criminals, and it has been wildly exaggerated by the press through presentation of anecdotal incidents as if they were representative of daily events.

The "blood feud and gang violence" thing is positively silly. Blood feuds are for all intents and purposes unknown in this country, just because a pair of families engaged in it in the 1800s in the backwoods of Kentucky and West Virginia or becuase it goes on in other countries does not mean there's a risk of it here. As for gang violence, gangs are quite likely to shoot at each other regardless of the self-defense laws, and not terribly likely to make their killings look like self-defense in any effective manner.

I realize he may just be trying to give due to the arguments against lethal self-defense, but the problem remains that a lot of them result from poor understanding of risks, and in the case of the last one, from silliness and grasping at straws.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."