You can move into the path of.the vehicle and shoot, because then you can be in fear for your life or great bodily harm.
There are some states I think Delaware is one of them where you can use deadly force to protect your property. now that is what the constitution says. I am almost positive the person using deadly force to protect property would still be charged.
Seems prosecutors when charging people in self defense, property defense and so forth should realize the savings to tax payers most of those shootings result in. Sorry to say, but good honest people don't go around breaking into houses or so forth.
Also with deadly force being only allowed if deadly force is being used against you. I am sure no rape victim would be charged fro shooting a would be rapist.
Seems prosecutors when charging people in self defense, property defense and so forth should realize the savings to tax payers most of those shootings result in. Sorry to say, but good honest people don't go around breaking into houses or so forth.
Also with deadly force being only allowed if deadly force is being used against you. I am sure no rape victim would be charged fro shooting a would be rapist.
Oklahoma's self defense laws--including a Castle law and Stand Your Ground law--are part of the Oklahoma Firearms Act of 1971 and are delineated in 21 O.S. 1289.25 of the state penal code: A. The Legislature hereby recognizes that the citizens of the State of Oklahoma have a right to expect absolute safety within their own homes or places of business.B. A person or an owner, manager or employee of a business is presumed to have held a reasonable fear of imminent peril of death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another when using defensive force that is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm to another if: 1. The person against whom the defensive force was used was in the process ofunlawfully and forcefully entering, or had unlawfully and forcibly entered, a dwelling, residence, occupied vehicle, or a place of business, or if that person had removed or was attempting to remove another against the will of that person from the dwelling, residence, occupied vehicle, or place of business; and 2. The person who uses defensive force knew or had reason to believe that an unlawful and forcible entry or unlawful and forcible act was occurring or had occurred. . . . D. A person who is not engaged in an unlawful activity and who is attacked in any other place where he or she has a right to be has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground and meet force with force, including deadly force, if he or she reasonably believes it is necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony. E. A person who unlawfully and by force enters or attempts to enter the dwelling, residence, occupied vehicle of another person, or a place of business is presumed to be doing so with the intent to commit an unlawful act involving force or violence. F. A person who uses force, as permitted pursuant to the provisions of subsections B and D of this section, is justified in using such force and is immune from criminal prosecution and civil action for the use of such force. As used in this subsection, the term "criminal prosecution" includes charging or prosecuting the defendant. G. A law enforcement agency may use standard procedures for investigating the use of force, but the law enforcement agency may not arrest the person for using force unless it determines that there is probable cause that the force that was used was unlawful.
Although the state's self defense laws are permissive, unreasonable force is not acceptable or justifiable in a court of law
Although the state's self defense laws are permissive, unreasonable force is not acceptable or justifiable in a court of law
Left coast. You are subjects there, they did away with freedom years ago.
Once upon a time the guy stealing the car would have been responsible for the death, but since he got away they grab the guy who was having his stuff stolen. He didn't get up that morning and decide to shoot up the neighborhood, he's just the easiest person to punish because somebody has to be punished right? I wonder if his livelihood and survival was dependent on that vehicle if it would make a difference. Nah. Somebody has to pay.
Anyway this is where that whole "you own every bullet you shoot" comes from, this is the worst case scenario.
Once upon a time the guy stealing the car would have been responsible for the death, but since he got away they grab the guy who was having his stuff stolen. He didn't get up that morning and decide to shoot up the neighborhood, he's just the easiest person to punish because somebody has to be punished right? I wonder if his livelihood and survival was dependent on that vehicle if it would make a difference. Nah. Somebody has to pay.
Anyway this is where that whole "you own every bullet you shoot" comes from, this is the worst case scenario.
I disagree. You don't have the right to spray bullets in a residential neighborhood without regard for their endpoint just to prevent the theft of your car. Why? Because innocent people end up dead. What if that was a 5 y/o kid? Is it justified then? Not if it's MY kid, I can promise you that...
I believe TX also allows deadly force to be used to protect property - but I'll guarantee you'd better be careful where those bullets end up, because if you kill someone uninvolved, the state is going to charge you.
Personally, I don't want a justified shooting on my part, but I've often wondered what defense I could take when a 200 pound guy that's over six ft in height attacked me. I'd fear for my life since I'm over 70 years and 5'7".
I would have ZERO difficulty defending anything even REMOTELY close to that in a court of law. That would be a non-starter.
I only said the responsibility would be on the shoulders of the thief. Should the shooter bear some negligence charge? Yep. BUT NOT MURDER which is what this will evolve into.
I agree with this. Also, it just gives evidence to those who would like to outlaw concealed carry and other armed defense under the "does more harm than good" argument.
As a gun owner, the first block in the decision tree should ALWAYS be "Am I, or others near me, in peril of severe bodily harm or death?"
The next blocks after the Yes/No should be "Yes - SHOOT", "NO - Take no action"
I don't have a dog in this hunt, but to me, the statute is very, very clear.
Protect oneself (and others) from great bodily harm.
Shoot to stop the threat.
(Practice enough so the odds of missing are minimized as much as you can)
The next blocks after the Yes/No should be "Yes - SHOOT", "NO - Take no action"
I don't have a dog in this hunt, but to me, the statute is very, very clear.
Protect oneself (and others) from great bodily harm.
Shoot to stop the threat.
(Practice enough so the odds of missing are minimized as much as you can)
Similar threads
