Originally Posted By: bubbatime
Originally Posted By: Astro14
I think you're wrong on this point: pointing it and discharging it are two different things.
They are not.
You're using lethal force, or the threat of lethal force, when you point your gun at someone. If there is no lethal threat to an innocent, you applying lethal force to the situation (by presenting, without firing) makes YOU the criminal who is threatening lethal harm. Once you unholster your weapon, you are bringing lethal force into the situation.
Imagine this scenario: You see a property crime in progress (a person breaking into your neighbor's house, as you suggest). You pull your gun and direct them to stop. They see your gun, a lethal threat to their life. They shoot YOU.
Who goes to jail?
YOU do, because you threatened them with lethal force. You were not justified in doing so. You were the aggressor. You were the first to point a gun. They had every right to a proportional (lethal) response.
You really need to consult a criminal attorney in your state.
I am only aware of one state (TN) that allows lethal force to prevent serious property crime.
But even then, I have a serious ethical issue with shooting someone over property.
Your post are usually spot on, but you missed the mark here. Of course, jurisdictional boundaries, states, and laws all come into play, so I will just make some generalities here.
Like I said earlier, property crimes should be left for the police to handle. As long as their is no imminent thread of injury or death to anyone, property can be replaced with insurance money.
As to your scenario above, where a law abiding neighbor, points a gun at a burglar committing a felony in progress at their neighbors house- the armed neighbor is acting in a law and order capacity. Good vs evil. Basically a citizens arrest. This concept is as old as time, and in most jurisdictions, a citizen can hold a felon, yes, even at gun point, until law enforcement is summonsed to the scene. The presented gun is NOT brandishing in a legal sense. Brandishing and displaying force to arrest are not the same. Displaying a gun in a citizens arrest, shows the bad guy exactly who is in charge. Its exactly the same as a police officer pointing his weapon at a felon. Now, the bad guy can either comply and lay down with his arms out, as requested. Or he could run away, in which case the home owner would not be justified in shooting him in the back. But the burglar sure as heck would not be justified in pulling a gun and shooting at the home owner just because he has a gun pointed at him. Just as he would not be justified at shooting at a police officer.
Originally Posted By: Astro14
Exactly - pointing a firearm is a lethal threat. A felony assault.
I don't think you're excused if you commit that felony to stop a felony.
The only legitimate use of lethal force is to stop a lethal threat.
A lethal threat consists of: Ability, opportunity, and intent. All three must be present for the threat to be present. A B&E in progress fails to meet the lethal threat criteria. The ability hasn't been demonstrated. The opportunity didn't exist until YOU SOUGHT OUT THE CONFLICT. The intent is clearly missing.
Because you sought out the conflict, with the ostensible burglar, by presenting your weapon to stop a felony, YOU are the aggressor. You are the one presenting the threat.
You are the felon.
Speechless. Absolutely speechless. Like I said, your post are usually on the money. This one is way off the mark.
I'll defer to your LE experience Bubbatime...but I have to say that this discussion came up in my Federal deputization class...which lasted over a week...and spent a lot of time on the legal aspects of lethal force. I was deputized with very limited jurisdiction (more on that via PM, if you like), so any time I had my weapon with me, I was, for all intents and purposes, carrying as a private citizen.
I'm not saying that you'll go to jail every time you pull a gun on a person burgling your neighbor's house, or stealing from someone, but I am saying that the court (and the cops) may very well ID you as the bad guy.
The only moral and legal reason to apply lethal force is to stop the imminent threat of bodily harm or death.
In my quoted discussion, I am responding to the poster who intends to use a gun to stop a property crime. You just agreed that you wouldn't pull your gun to stop a property crime...so, while you're disagreeing with my post, you're also agreeing with my point: don't pull a gun to stop a property crime.
You only use your firearm to end a lethal threat.
Period.
And, on that point, I think we agree...
Does that help clarify my post?
Or do you still think I am way off base?
