Charged with a felony for protecting your property? In Mn?

[98XJSport]

I don't think the law cares. It doesn't matter if you are "actually" using a deadly weapon or not. The only thing that matters is how the law interprets it.

Right. Like I was checking out laws pertaining to concealing weapons up here. Basically they say that its illegal to conceal a "dangerous" weapon, and what makes it dangerous is if it's used to cause or threaten harm to another. Carrying a knife in your pocket, legal. Threatening someone with the knife in your pocket, concealing a deadly/dangerous weapon.

But what is a 70+ year old person going to do, stop or Ill hit you with my walker? Throw my false teeth?

 

[Ray H]

Absolutely WRONG. The only person who knows it's unloaded is whoever is holding it. It is *ABSOLUTELY* a threat. You've said that you're a CCW holder. You, of all people, should know what it means to hold a firearm on somebody.

.

Im no longer a CCW holder.
Anyway,
Dont confuse the perception of threat with actual threat.
Yes, you absolutely can use deadly force to defend yourself against someone who you perceive as having the ability to use deadly force against you.
BUT, If that perception changes, the threat disappears, if you KNOW ITS EMPTY, theres no longer a deadly threat. You are no longer justified in using deadly force.

Its all about perception when using deadly force. If someone tells me they are going to kill me and quickly pulls a comb out of their pocket, I perceive it as a threat, Im justified in shooting someone brandishing a comb at me. That doesnt mean its it illegal for them to carry a comb.

 

[JTwthaXJ]

Regardless, he knew that the theif had taken something that didn't belong to him...so he decided to protect his neighbors property as if it were his own. Would you guys want our neighbor to protect your house/car if it were vandalized or damaged, if they saw someone messing your stuff up. Congratulate the man, give him an award for having brass balls at the age of 70. I think more folks should step up when they see someone doing something that is obivously illegal. If any of my friends saw someone even remotely close to my JEEP and messing with it, they would go after the person like it was their job. If he had just waited for the sheriff or whatever form of law enforcement to get there the guy would just be ripping someone else off the following day. Moral of the story is the theif was arrested for doing wrong, and he was a dumbass for bringing a woman and a kid along for it. Guess thats one way to show the kid that its wrong to take from others, and you never know who's watching...

 

[DrMoab]

Its all about perception when using deadly force. If someone tells me they are going to kill me and quickly pulls a comb out of their pocket, I perceive it as a threat, Im justified in shooting someone brandishing a comb at me. That doesnt mean its it illegal for them to carry a comb.

Thats why I am glad I live where I do. It doesn't matter if I am in my car, home, tent or motorhome. If someone comes in uninvited I can shoot him dead.

Here entering the domicile is precived as a deadly threat.

Too bad it doesn't extend to property.

 

[Gil BullyKatz]

Regardless, he knew that the theif had taken something that didn't belong to him...so he decided to protect his neighbors property as if it were his own. Would you guys want our neighbor to protect your house/car if it were vandalized or damaged, if they saw someone messing your stuff up. Congratulate the man, give him an award for having brass balls at the age of 70. I think more folks should step up when they see someone doing something that is obivously illegal. If any of my friends saw someone even remotely close to my JEEP and messing with it, they would go after the person like it was their job. If he had just waited for the sheriff or whatever form of law enforcement to get there the guy would just be ripping someone else off the following day. Moral of the story is the theif was arrested for doing wrong, and he was a dumbass for bringing a woman and a kid along for it. Guess thats one way to show the kid that its wrong to take from others, and you never know who's watching...

Here's the catch...

Would you be willing to see your wife, mom, child, dog, etc. killed as a result of a traffic collision caused by a 70yr old man chasing someone else...
over $5?


Better yet...

Imagine yourself on the way to work or wherever and having this collection of tards lose control, run you over and leave you a vegetable...

over $5?


I'm sure it would be no different if the geezer had had a heart attack and died as a result of a confontation over what?...

$5?


The bottom line is that sometimes it's not worth it...

It's more important to pick which battle to fight...

and which to leave for the insurance companies...

or attack dogs

 

[98XJSport]

Here's the catch...

Would you be willing to see your wife, mom, child, dog, etc. killed as a result of a traffic collision caused by a 70yr old man chasing someone else...
over $5?


Better yet...

Imagine yourself on the way to work or wherever and having this collection of tards lose control, run you over and leave you a vegetable...

over $5?


I'm sure it would be no different if the geezer had had a heart attack and died as a result of a confontation over what?...

$5?


The bottom line is that sometimes it's not worth it...

It's more important to pick which battle to fight...

and which to leave for the insurance companies...

or attack dogs

All true, although it has nearly happened to me, I driven to the soft shoulder by a car doing 70+ passing me. Few seconds later the cops drove by. Don't know what he did, or why he was running. But I don't blame the cops for me being nearly run over.

He did what the cops would have done, with probably less force. As a result the thief will not get in trouble for running from the authority, endangering the child, etc.

Upholding the law is upholding the law, we all trust each other to do it for the common good. I would have no problem having this person as a neighbor compared to having someone that wouldn't lift a finger if someone was stealing from my car.

 

[98stocker]

If I don't have the right to defend the property I own, do I really own it?

 

[Ray H]

I conceed.
I did a little research real quick and it appears that most states have odopted the ruling that a Gun, loaded, unloaded, operational or unoperational, even toy guns and starter guns are considered to be deadly weapons if used as a weapon during a crime. From what I read quickly, they hold that an unloaded gun is considered a deadly weapon because it can be used to bludgen someone. Basically the same as a fork would be considred a deadly weapon if its used to stab someone. By the same token, If you were to use an unloaded pistal as a hammer, it would not be considered a deadly weapon. It appears that the key is the intended use of the unloaded gun that makes it a deadly weapon or not.

 

[Gil BullyKatz]

All true, although it has nearly happened to me, I driven to the soft shoulder by a car doing 70+ passing me. Few seconds later the cops drove by. Don't know what he did, or why he was running. But I don't blame the cops for me being nearly run over.

He did what the cops would have done, with probably less force. As a result the thief will not get in trouble for running from the authority, endangering the child, etc.

Upholding the law is upholding the law, we all trust each other to do it for the common good. I would have no problem having this person as a neighbor compared to having someone that wouldn't lift a finger if someone was stealing from my car.

Which is exactly why police depts natiowide are getting constantly sued over injuries and deaths caused by high speed pursuits...

I don't know the specifics but many PD's have specific guidlines regarding which crimes merit a "pursuit"...

Hell... They even have criteria for when you can or can't unholster your weapon.

IIRC... The criteria for actually opening fire on you is pretty narrow.


If this guy was MY neighbor I would've been happy if he had just called the cops or gotten the thief's licence plate number.

 

[olivedrabcj7]

Youre no longer defending your property once its already gone.If someone is running off with a can of your gas, you cant shoot them in the back and claim you were protecting your $5 worth of gas. I suppose you could, but I doubt there is a PA in this country that wouldnt pursue a prosecution in that situation.

Like has already been said. Just because the law sucks, doesnt mean you can break it and not be charged with a felony.

Its not your position as a citizen to "uphold the law" thats what LEO's are for. Its their job, not yours. However, if he had caught the guy in the act, drawn down on him, held him for the police. That would be 100% justified and no longer excessive.

This geezer took the law into his own hands and without a badge and a squad car, you cant pull stunts like this in America anymore.

 

[IXNAYXJ]

I have said it before....arm everyone then petty theft would cease to be a problem.

"An armed society is a polite society. Manners are good when one may have to back up his acts with his life." -Robert A. Heinlein

-----Matt-----

 

[Gil BullyKatz]

Geezers...


They shouldn't be allowed to drive past a certain age anyway.

unless they pass a yearly driving and health exam.

"A privilege... not a right"

 

[98XJSport]

Its not your position as a citizen to "uphold the law" thats what LEO's are for. Its their job, not yours. However, if he had caught the guy in the act, drawn down on him, held him for the police. That would be 100% justified and no longer excessive.

Not sure if I agree with the first part of this. Maybe it's coming from a small town with no law enforcement, but if you as a citizen aren't willing to uphold the law, then don't expect the law to be upheld. Taken to the extreme if you saw someone beat a kid in front of you, wouldn't you do something?

And for the last part, isn't that what the guy did? With the addition of chasing the guy down after he caught him in the act.

I hate arguments like this, since the law no longer conforms to morality it's hard to take a side completely.

 

[Ray H]

Geezers...


They shouldn't be allowed to drive past a certain age anyway.

unless they pass a yearly driving and health exam.

"A privilege... not a right"

Driving on public roads is my right and not a privilege if Im paying (taxes) to use the roads and register my car.

 

[Ray H]

I hate arguments like this, since the law no longer conforms to morality it's hard to take a side completely.

I think that sums it up very well.
We would all like to see the gas can thief brought to justice and we know that left up to the cops, it probably wont happen (i mean $5, do you really think they would show up any time soon) but do we really want old men running around brandishing guns. Its a tough one no matter what your views are.
I almost always lean towards the side of less government envolvment and government dependancy, the better.

 

[Gil BullyKatz]

Driving on public roads is my right and not a privilege if Im paying (taxes) to use the roads and register my car.

By definition, ANYONE that pays taxes would then be entitled to drive...

You can't walk into a DMV and demand a license because it's your "right" and because you pay taxes...

They will issue one for you if YOU meet the requirements and pass the exam.

 

[Bent]

I could be friends with a murderer more then I could be friends with a thief.

Hey Friend!

 

[98XJSport]

but do we really want old men running around brandishing guns. Its a tough one no matter what your views are.

Memories of the end of hunting season when a couple deer were spotted in the field after daylight... although that memory involves long johns, one of those hats with the ear flaps, and big rubber boots...

 

[Ray H]

By definition, ANYONE that pays taxes would then be entitled to drive...

You can't walk into a DMV and demand a license because it's your "right" and because you pay taxes...

They will issue one for you if YOU meet the requirements and pass the exam.

Obviously there should be certain physical and mental standards for driving. Sure you can walk in and demand to take the driving test. If you pass, its your right to drive.
Let me ask you, can the DMV take your license away for no reason, just suddenly revoke it without cause?
No, they need a reason, you must break a rule. You break a rule, you lose your right.
And in my state you have to show proof that you have payed taxes to register a vehicle.
So our DMV specifically says, if you dont pay taxes, you dont get to use the roads. Im just taking it the other way. If they can demand that I pay taxes to use the roads, I think I can demand to use them if Ive payed.

 

[Ray H]

The driving "privilege vs right" thing is something DMVs dreamt up to scare kids into thinking they could lose their license at the drop of a hat. This is also the reason I believe random sobriety checkpoints are unconstitutional. Obviously the courts dont agree, whats new.
Heres the legal truth.

"Personal liberty largely consists of the Right of locomotion -- to go where and when one pleases -- only so far restrained as the Rights of others may make it necessary for the welfare of all other citizens. The Right of the Citizen to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon, by horse drawn carriage, wagon, or automobile, is not a mere privilege which may be permitted or prohibited at will, but the common Right which he has under his Right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Under this Constitutional guarantee one may, therefore, under normal conditions, travel at his inclination along the public highways or in public places, and while conducting himself in an orderly and decent manner, neither interfering with nor disturbing another's Rights, he will be protected, not only in his person, but in his safe conduct." [Emphasis added] II Am.Jur. (1st) Constitutional Law, Sect.329, p.1135"