OT USE OF DEADLY FORCE DISCUSSION - How to TRY and prevent our trucks from being stolen

[SnowBlaZR2]

100% agree with this.
Clearly I had misunderstood some of your earlier posts, because this doesn't match how I took those. My apologies for the confusion.

All good.

I jumped in and got lumped in with what some others were saying.

 

[Brutal_HO]

We're in a completely new thread now?

This is getting old.

The OT posts in the preventing truck theft (para) were reported as such and moved from that thread to a new thread. That thread is still there for all to participate in but should remain on topic. Some replies may have gotten caught up in the fray.

Glad to merge this and the other OT Use of force thread if desired, but it would probably be a hot mess at this point.

If you take issue with a moderator action, I suggest you report a post and state your reasons.

 

[SnowBlaZR2]

If you take issue with a moderator action, I suggest you report a post and state your reasons.

Do whatever you want. I made a simple observation.

 

[Mountain Whiskey]

The OT posts in the preventing truck theft (para) were reported as such and moved from that thread to a new thread. That thread is still there for all to participate in but should remain on topic. Some replies may have gotten caught up in the fray.

Glad to merge this and the other OT Use of force thread if desired, but it would probably be a hot mess at this point.

If you take issue with a moderator action, I suggest you report a post and state your reasons.

I kind of set up the other thread in the effort to get folks over to off topic. No idea how hard it is to merge threads though.

I just figured OT could be a place to post OT and not get shut down. Let it develop into whatever it does.

 

[ZombieSlayer]

A long time ago in a state far far away (CA) I had an intercom system hidden in the bushes next to my vehicles. I had a pre-recorded tape with the racking of a shotgun and a countdown from 10. It worked quite well to get rid of lookie-loos, jehovas(sp?), solicitors, and the ahole that walked his dog to my lawn to take a dump.

Was also fun to use on unsuspecting friends and family

It got smashed when a drunk t-boned a bus and then knocked both my truck and car across the driveway into the neighbors (luckily they were parked in the garage that day.)

 

[Shots]

As for the police, not all of them are hunters to be able to understand. In this instance the "concerned caller" who reported the guy claimed he was being "suspicious" around a school. But there are elementary schools in almost every neighborhood. And since it was a 911 call, they have to respond.

Yes you are correct, they do have to respond. They can't assume the caller was mistaken or the report was unfounded. So when the snowflake calls they have to at least check it out.
That said, when police show up they aren't required to stop with the person. They can keep driving if there's no crime. They don't have to be a hunter, they just have to know the laws they are enforcing.
They may choose to stop and talk to you, but a consensual conversations is not being questioned or harassed. You could even ignore them and/or walk away. There's case law on that too. This "stop and talk" differs from a Terry stop where you are required to give some amount of compliance. Just because an officer talks to you, doesn't mean you are required to talk back. I would talk to them because I don't have an issue with police, but you don't always have to. Similarly they don't have to make contact with the reported person based on the call, and in fact can't insist on it unless there is reason to be believe a crime is being, has been or is about to be committed. In an open carry state, simply having a visible weapon is not evidence of a crime. If it's brandished, then yes a crime has been committed and they can require you to stop. If the weapon is possessed within a school safety zone, it's a crime and they can also require you to stop. Search and seizure laws and gun laws intertwine a lot and can get tricky if you only know bits and pieces of what can/can't be done.

I'm still standing by my opinion that if you are taking a gun with you to confront a would be thief, the intimidation factor of having the gun visible is a factor in why you brought it with you, to deter them from escalating. Because unless you witness the thief having their own weapon, you can't really claim "self defense" if they aren't actively threatening you personally.

I agree that engaging them with the weapon is not self defense if they're simply stealing the truck. And as I also mentioned before, if you have enough concern that you feel the need to take the gun, you shouldn't be going out to confront them.
It is a very fine line, which is what I think is causing the difference of opinions. That alone is enough for me to not confront the thief. If we are divided on whether it's justifiable, so will be a jury of your peers if things escalate and you have to use the weapon. Now you have to worry if 12 people will be convinced that you were or weren't doing something wrong by taking it. Not a chance I want to take over a truck that can be replaced.

I still agree with SnowBlaZR2 that taking the gun with you doesn't automatically mean you intend to use it though. Nor does having it in your hand constitute "brandishing" either.
As defined by Merriam-Webster: Brandish means: 1: to shake or wave menacingly, or 2: to exhibit in an ostentatious or aggressive manner.
If the gun is pointed at them, yes it's brandished. If it's held up in an overt way so as to purposely make it's presence known, yes it's brandished. If it's in your hand (flat to the body or at your side) because you were watching tv and don't have a holster on your belt, no it's not brandished.

Visual references:
↓ Not brandished. ↓ This is a tactical position which allows you to get on target quickly. You're not waving it around, the muzzle is down, you're not pointing at the thief, and depending on the color of your cloths and gun it may be rather inconspicuous. This is not "ostentatious", overtly displayed or aggressive, and therefore not "brandished".


↓ This is brandished. ↓ This is an aggressive posture and you're likely pointing at the thief. Despite what tv shows you, this is NOT how you clear an area with your pistol, especially when you're turning a corner. The Army (and I assume every other branch) teaches you to corner with it tucked closer to the body so you shouldn't be walking around like this. In which case you're likely not brandishing it while you're checking your property unless you're clearing the area like you're on a tv show.

 

[SnowBlaZR2]

I agree that engaging them with the weapon is not self defense if they're simply stealing the truck.

Engaging them and having a weapon on you, or engaging them and using the weapon?

And as I also mentioned before, if you have enough concern that you feel the need to take the gun, you shouldn't be going out to confront them.

I don't agree. If I called the sheriff out every time my motion lights turned on, they'd stop coming. Most of the time it's an animal (cat, fox, etc) but twice it's been someone checking door handles. I'm taking the firearm with me to be prepared, not necessarily because I feel like I'm going to need it.

 

[Shots]

Engaging them and having a weapon on you, or engaging them and using the weapon?

Engaging with the weapon, not engaging them with it on your person.
ie rounds on target for simply stealing the truck

 

[Shots]

I don't agree. If I called the sheriff out every time my motion lights turned on, they'd stop coming. Most of the time it's an animal (cat, fox, etc) but twice it's been someone checking door handles. I'm taking the firearm with me to be prepared, not necessarily because I feel like I'm going to need it.

Fair point.

 

[SnowBlaZR2]

Engaging with the weapon, not engaging them with it on your person.
ie rounds on target for simply stealing the truck

Gotcha. Definitely not a justifiable use of force in that case...unless you live in Texas.

 

[HSKR R/T]

Yes you are correct, they do have to respond. They can't assume the caller was mistaken or the report was unfounded. So when the snowflake calls they have to at least check it out.
That said, when police show up they aren't required to stop with the person. They can keep driving if there's no crime. They don't have to be a hunter, they just have to know the laws they are enforcing.
They may choose to stop and talk to you, but a consensual conversations is not being questioned or harassed. You could even ignore them and/or walk away. There's case law on that too. This "stop and talk" differs from a Terry stop where you are required to give some amount of compliance. Just because an officer talks to you, doesn't mean you are required to talk back. I would talk to them because I don't have an issue with police, but you don't always have to. Similarly they don't have to make contact with the reported person based on the call, and in fact can't insist on it unless there is reason to be believe a crime is being, has been or is about to be committed. In an open carry state, simply having a visible weapon is not evidence of a crime. If it's brandished, then yes a crime has been committed and they can require you to stop. If the weapon is possessed within a school safety zone, it's a crime and they can also require you to stop. Search and seizure laws and gun laws intertwine a lot and can get tricky if you only know bits and pieces of what can/can't be done.


I agree that engaging them with the weapon is not self defense if they're simply stealing the truck. And as I also mentioned before, if you have enough concern that you feel the need to take the gun, you shouldn't be going out to confront them.
It is a very fine line, which is what I think is causing the difference of opinions. That alone is enough for me to not confront the thief. If we are divided on whether it's justifiable, so will be a jury of your peers if things escalate and you have to use the weapon. Now you have to worry if 12 people will be convinced that you were or weren't doing something wrong by taking it. Not a chance I want to take over a truck that can be replaced.

I still agree with SnowBlaZR2 that taking the gun with you doesn't automatically mean you intend to use it though. Nor does having it in your hand constitute "brandishing" either.
As defined by Merriam-Webster: Brandish means: 1: to shake or wave menacingly, or 2: to exhibit in an ostentatious or aggressive manner.
If the gun is pointed at them, yes it's brandished. If it's held up in an overt way so as to purposely make it's presence known, yes it's brandished. If it's in your hand (flat to the body or at your side) because you were watching tv and don't have a holster on your belt, no it's not brandished.

Visual references:
↓ Not brandished. ↓ This is a tactical position which allows you to get on target quickly. You're not waving it around, the muzzle is down, you're not pointing at the thief, and depending on the color of your cloths and gun it may be rather inconspicuous. This is not "ostentatious", overtly displayed or aggressive, and therefore not "brandished".
View attachment 129571

↓ This is brandished. ↓ This is an aggressive posture and you're likely pointing at the thief. Despite what tv shows you, this is NOT how you clear an area with your pistol, especially when you're turning a corner. The Army (and I assume every other branch) teaches you to corner with it tucked closer to the body so you shouldn't be walking around like this. In which case you're likely not brandishing it while you're checking your property unless you're clearing the area like you're on a tv show.
View attachment 129574

Problem is, unless there are cameras, it's your word against theirs. If the police are called and the other person says you were waving the gun at them, and they may actually feel you were if it's in your hands, the police will have to take that into consideration when doing interviews.

And obviously you don't want to be sticking the gun out around the corner unless you can see what is around the corner. Makes it easy for someone to just grab it away from you. I would say most gun owners aren't trained in clearing a building, or even just general safe handling of weapons in different situations. Not even military. I did 20 years in the Navy. Worked aviation. We did one week of rifle drills in boot camp with M16s converter to shoot .22lr. my first deployment I got to shoot a shotgun and 9mm off the back of ship when they were "disposing" of expired rounds. I never even got my pistol qual until 2 years before retirement. And when I qualified sharp shooter, that was only the second time I had fired a pistol. The first time was mentioned above during first deployment. And we just **** into the water at that time. No targets.

 

[Shots]

LOL I've seen photos of sailors shooting at open water, and always wondered what the point was. Now I know what's going on, they're disposing of expired ammo. Ha ha, must get boring at sea.

And yes, I absolutely agree that most people who have and/or carry weapons aren't trained in the proper use of them. It's a shame too, because you'd think they'd want to know how to best utilize it.

Also, there's no doubt you're right about it being your word against the criminal's in regards to whether or not you brandished the weapon or just have it in your hand. But if there's no video to prove you did brandish it, then there isn't one to prove you did. You may have to answer a few questions, but I don't see how it could go any further than that.
This is all assuming police are involved at all anyway. If you checked on the suspicious noise instead of calling the police, they'll never be there for the criminal to make the accusation. I doubt the criminal is going to call the police to report you had a gun while they were trespassing and trying to steal your truck. To report your alleged crime they'd have to admit to their actual one. Probably not a call they'll make. Of course criminals can be pretty dumb some times, so I won't say it's impossible.

 

[Brutal_HO]

LOL I've seen photos of sailors shooting at open water, and always wondered what the point was. Now I know what's going on, they're disposing of expired ammo. Ha ha, must get boring at sea.

That's called "training."

When I was in the Army, we shot up leftover ammo at the qual range all the time. We made the PVT's load all the empty mags with whatever was left and all the range NCO's would shoot up the extra ammo so the OIC didn't have to turn in live ammo. M16 mag dumps are fun. I shot the M-60 and (practice round) LAW in basic but wasn't a bullet catcher so not much more than the M16 for 8 years. Shot a few German weapons over there but don't really even remember what those were now.

 

[Mountain Whiskey]

You navy guys killing water out there, what is "expired" ammo? I have surplus ammo from the 80s that shoots fine.

 

[Shots]

Yeah "expired" ammo always makes me laugh too. I remember when I was a new boot and Sgt told us to "dump the old ammo" in a bucket after training. Having grown up in a rural area we often had left over ammo from when we were hunting or target shooting, and it would get used years later (if not sooner). I never gave any thought to an expiration date on it, so the idea of not using "old" ammo was very foreign to me.
After dumping the old ammo, we would be in another area doing other drills and could here them going to town with all that "old" ammo. Sure sounded like it shot just fine to me. Ha ha.
I'm not sure how old my oldest ammo is, but I know I've got some pretty old buck and bird shot laying around. I guess maybe I should go out to the back forty and "dispose" of it. I suppose I'll go buy a box of clay pigeons so I'm at least aiming at something. Much more fun than just shooting at nothing.

 

[HSKR R/T]

You navy guys killing water out there, what is "expired" ammo? I have surplus ammo from the 80s that shoots fine.

Gunpowder has a shelf life. It starts to degrade over time. Especially on a ship. Ammo isn't sealed so moisture can get in. Not sure how long the shelf life is, but it's use it or lose it when it gets closer so on shore they just set up range days. On the ship, when underway, you are limited to when you can shoot. Especially on an aircraft carrier.

 

[Camelot]

In some states just brandishing a weapon is a crime. Also, the one that calls 911 first has the upper hand. (Even if it is the perp) Cameras are your friend, so is calling 911 and have them on the line while you argue with the perp. Educate yourself so you know what is acceptable where you happen to be. CCW is a good app to study before you travel with a firearm. Good people with good intentions get in trouble all the time because they take bad advice.

 

[Brutal_HO]

Gunpowder has a shelf life. It starts to degrade over time. Especially on a ship. Ammo isn't sealed so moisture can get in. Not sure how long the shelf life is, but it's use it or lose it when it gets closer so on shore they just set up range days. On the ship, when underway, you are limited to when you can shoot. Especially on an aircraft carrier.

A more accurate statement would be ALL ammo isn't sealed. Much of it is sealed, particularly the primers.

I've shot 70's surplus M80 through my finicky when silenced Sig 716P with zero issues.

 

[Shots]

..... Good people with good intentions get in trouble all the time because they take bad advice.

Yeah, it happens all the time with people who base their decisions solely on unverified sources (ie "the internet").

For example I previously mentioned not having to stop and talk to the police if there is no crime. While this is true, it does come with a catch and if you don't educate yourself you can make a bad choice. When I said you don't have to stop, It doesn't mean that you don't have to stop only if you don't feel like there is a crime. There may be some crime that you don't know about, which would require you to stop. Maybe it's an offense unwittingly committed by you or an offense committed by someone who matches your description that they're investigating. You need to base your decisions on complete and verifiable information that you understand fully. If you take internet advice, without educating yourself fully, you can get in trouble even though you think you're right.

A more common example, to relate to an automotive forum, is people driving 5-10 over the posted limit. When foreigners come to the United States, people will inevitably tell them they can drive ## mph over the posted speed limit. They have no reason to not believe their friends, and in fact can see the common flow of traffic supports it. They are trying to be a good person, and doing what is permitted/normal but then they get pulled over for speeding because they were given bad advice.
So yes, good people get in trouble all the time because they take bad advice. Educate yourself by going to the source. If you're looking at gun laws (since that's where we started), I'd look at your state's law books, or your state Attorney General's website. Although convenient, I wouldn't trust gun apps, or pro-gun websites (CCW app, NRA site, etc). Check the law for yourself, not their interpretation of it.

 

[Finn5033]

I’d hate so see anyone get themselves killed or in trouble trying to protect their truck. It’s not worth it at all. IMO stay in your house, protect yourself, and call 911. Let the police and the insurance companies do their job.

Having to shop for a new truck is better than being dead, injured, or in jail.