U see some dudes stealing Ur bike, Can we shoot them??
#121
02-04-2010, 11:45 AM
Road Master
It has been my experience and others I've talked to that LEO's tend to look at holders of CHL's as Certifiable Good Guys.
We aren't the ones causing problems.
Every since Concealed Carry has passed and with growing numbers doing so,the crime rate has been in a steady fall.
"A armed society is a polite society."
We aren't the ones causing problems.
Every since Concealed Carry has passed and with growing numbers doing so,the crime rate has been in a steady fall.
"A armed society is a polite society."
#123
02-04-2010, 12:12 PM
Ultimate HDF Member
At Greenspoint[gunspoint for the Houstonians] you would get your motorcycle stolen, your *** whipped and they would take your cell phone. Then use your phone to take pictures of you maybe crying like a girl. That is if they didn't shoot you first to hear you squeal. You could maybe make them calls from the emergency room if you survived. The only thing I can agree with you on is that it will cost you in court if you defend yourself with a gun.
Once again the best advice so far is still, in my mind, Olddude48 post #45...don't get legal advice from a Harley forum.
If you carry and use that gun then be prepared for an expensive lesson on whether you were right or wrong. If you carry I repeat myself and say you better be legal to carry and know the applicable laws. If you use deadly force on your property then the same advice applies...learn your laws or know where all the exits are. Texas in the Fall of '07 added the so called "castle" law and it greatly reduces or eliminates the chance of civil liability ON your property at night. Many states are apparently moving in the direction of affording more protection to those who use deadly force to protect life and property.
My family still owns a bar that was broken into many years ago in Massachusetts, locked inside was a German Shepard. The dog made thief flee and caught him outside and took a chunk out of the thief's leg, the guy killed the dog to get loose using the same bar he smashed in the lock with. He was one of the usual suspects and was later apprehended and convicted. The family then had to defend themselves in a civil lawsuit for the medical/pain/trauma suffered. Very expensive way to find out family was right. I attended the PA State Police Academy once upon a time and at that time we were taught if deadly force was used there could be no other choice....break into house, enter bedroom where you are sleeping and you must use the window if one is available. I hope that has changed. We in Texas "enjoy" a system that is heavily weighted in favor of the defender but that is Texas and still not "fool" proof.
Keep the responses coming for the OP I guess and I will keep reading them as well since some are pretty comical in their bravado and none have assumed the guy stealing might be say a ex Navy seal who can't find work and is perfectly capable of taking away your trusty piece and sticking it where the sun doesn't shine and squeeze off a few of your own bullets
Once again #45 is my pick dujour for sound advice and a couple others that were similar, followed closely by #100 who was immediately flamed. Remarkably nobody flamed #12 for his guidance that he learned to shoot/not shoot by playing 2 video games. No flames for the two guys who carry shovels or the one who has a backhoe I guess he can "sneak in" to remove the bodies. Oh, I myself would shoot them right there in the mall parking lot...several shots...with my cellular, get the license plate in one,and a nice overall of the van, maybe a glamor shot or two of the would be thieves with my bike. Then I would dial 911. If that didn't work I would use my fast reloader and call my insurance company. That saves me from having to carry a drop gun in addition to the shovel everywhere I go. If your personal choice is to blaze away, I wish you good shooting. While you wait for the police you might want to go in the mall and get a good suit, chances are you will need it in court.
John
If you carry and use that gun then be prepared for an expensive lesson on whether you were right or wrong. If you carry I repeat myself and say you better be legal to carry and know the applicable laws. If you use deadly force on your property then the same advice applies...learn your laws or know where all the exits are. Texas in the Fall of '07 added the so called "castle" law and it greatly reduces or eliminates the chance of civil liability ON your property at night. Many states are apparently moving in the direction of affording more protection to those who use deadly force to protect life and property.
My family still owns a bar that was broken into many years ago in Massachusetts, locked inside was a German Shepard. The dog made thief flee and caught him outside and took a chunk out of the thief's leg, the guy killed the dog to get loose using the same bar he smashed in the lock with. He was one of the usual suspects and was later apprehended and convicted. The family then had to defend themselves in a civil lawsuit for the medical/pain/trauma suffered. Very expensive way to find out family was right. I attended the PA State Police Academy once upon a time and at that time we were taught if deadly force was used there could be no other choice....break into house, enter bedroom where you are sleeping and you must use the window if one is available. I hope that has changed. We in Texas "enjoy" a system that is heavily weighted in favor of the defender but that is Texas and still not "fool" proof.
Keep the responses coming for the OP I guess and I will keep reading them as well since some are pretty comical in their bravado and none have assumed the guy stealing might be say a ex Navy seal who can't find work and is perfectly capable of taking away your trusty piece and sticking it where the sun doesn't shine and squeeze off a few of your own bullets
Once again #45 is my pick dujour for sound advice and a couple others that were similar, followed closely by #100 who was immediately flamed. Remarkably nobody flamed #12 for his guidance that he learned to shoot/not shoot by playing 2 video games. No flames for the two guys who carry shovels or the one who has a backhoe I guess he can "sneak in" to remove the bodies. Oh, I myself would shoot them right there in the mall parking lot...several shots...with my cellular, get the license plate in one,and a nice overall of the van, maybe a glamor shot or two of the would be thieves with my bike. Then I would dial 911. If that didn't work I would use my fast reloader and call my insurance company. That saves me from having to carry a drop gun in addition to the shovel everywhere I go. If your personal choice is to blaze away, I wish you good shooting. While you wait for the police you might want to go in the mall and get a good suit, chances are you will need it in court.
John
#125
02-04-2010, 12:29 PM
Advanced
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Oklahoma City
Posts: 53
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Shoot for property
Just read an article where one brother came upon some A$$holes that had loaded up his bike and was driving away, he was stunned and all he had time to do was stand in front of the van. Yelling at them he had to jump out of the way to keep from being run over...
So I was wondering how myself or others would handle it if we came upon 3or4 dudes stealing our bike.??..I do pack some times, but it would/could get messy real quick..
So I was wondering how myself or others would handle it if we came upon 3or4 dudes stealing our bike.??..I do pack some times, but it would/could get messy real quick..
#126
02-04-2010, 01:37 PM
hey man, if you use your car or truck and ram the van and block it in the driveway then it is a small traffic accident and they won t get out. But your life is not easily replaced like a bike would be! You just don t know who these guys are or what they have for weapons. But I agree... you should be able to shoot in defense of yourself or you property!
Shoot First, ask Questions later!
Shoot First, ask Questions later!
#127
02-04-2010, 01:37 PM
Extreme HDF Member
There are several states that I might be interested in doing some business in the future. You see, I am thinking of becoming a "Harley Thief". In a lot of the states of this country, not only would I not get shot or shot at, I do believe that the victims of my crimes would also help me to load thier bikes in my van. This way, I could be a one man operation, and keep all of the bikes/money for myself! ........... Is this a great country or what?
#128
02-04-2010, 01:48 PM
Road Master
In Louisiana we have a shoot the carjacker law. Someone comes up to your car and tries to get in or brandishes a weapon, can be deleted on the spot. I imagine the same thing would apply if you were astride your Harley and they wanted to take it. Now stealing it from a garage or parking place and you weren't on it would be a different matter. Of course, it you were standing in from the the vehicle of the perpetrators and they tried to run you over and you feared for you life, well that is another matter. What would you do if they were stealing your dog or wife?
#129
02-04-2010, 01:55 PM
Grand HDF Member
Tough call. I'm a CCW holder but am not real sure I would take a life to protect my bike. Not at all saying that would be a bad thing now, I just personally don't know until presented with the situation. I'm thinking I would empty my Glock in the radiator or tires. Like someone said, they won't get far.
#130
02-04-2010, 04:11 PM
. Defending yourself isn't as defined as one thinks. Case in point - An acquaintance of mine returned home one evening to find a guy inside his house. A struggle insued and the intruder was choked to death via a headlock (esophagus crushed). After the investigation a law suit was filed by the deceased family. It was later revealed the intruder was mentally disabled from childbirth and in his confusion and circumstances of that evening, entered the wrong house within the neighborhood. The guy had no criminal background or history of violence, no concealed weapon, and no forced entry into the house.
Criminal charges weren't filed against the homeowner, however, he paid thousands in defense fees, and unfortunately, the incident will disturb him for his entire life. He had to sell his home and move.
Discharging a firearm - you better be damn careful on all circumstances, then pray there's no legal ramifications. Your freedom and/or any assets you may have accumulated over your lifespan may be subjected to forfeiture.
Criminal charges weren't filed against the homeowner, however, he paid thousands in defense fees, and unfortunately, the incident will disturb him for his entire life. He had to sell his home and move.
Discharging a firearm - you better be damn careful on all circumstances, then pray there's no legal ramifications. Your freedom and/or any assets you may have accumulated over your lifespan may be subjected to forfeiture.
Not so in Missouri, the Castle Doctrine in Missouri provides that if you defend your life, the life of anyone in your family, or the life of any other person with lethal force, and you are then prosecuted and found innocent, the burden of paying for defense rests solely on the Prosecution not the defendant. This was added to keep Prosecutors from going after someone just for the sake of going after them and then ruining thier lives over defending themselves...ALSO if you are prosecuted for defending yourself and found innocent you are also protected form so called liability suits, in other words the family cant sue you because they are upset that thier dirtbag family member got what was rightfully given to him. its in the Castle doctrine, signed into law. its a done deal. Every State is Different, they adopt different degrees of the castle doctrine.
But every bit of this is irrelevent, the OP is in Indiana, Indiana has a Castle doctrine, he needs to read it and know it. its is very short one but spells out what is legal, and this may have been amended since it was signed into law in 2006 to read a little differently.
HOUSE ENROLLED ACT No. 1028
AN ACT to amend the Indiana Code concerning firearms and self-defense.
Be it enacted by the General Assembly of the State of Indiana:
SECTION 1. IC 35-41-3-2 IS AMENDED TO READ AS FOLLOWS [EFFECTIVE JULY 1, 2006]: Sec. 2. (a) A person is justified in using reasonable force against another person to protect the person or a third person from what the person reasonably believes to be the imminent use of unlawful force. However, a person:
(1) is justified in using deadly force; only and
(2) does not have a duty to retreat;
if the person reasonably believes that that force is necessary to prevent serious bodily injury to the person or a third person or the commission of a forcible felony. No person in this state shall be placed in legal jeopardy of any kind whatsoever for protecting the person or a third person by reasonable means necessary.
(b) A person:
(1) is justified in using reasonable force, including deadly force, against another person; and
(2) does not have a duty to retreat;
if the person reasonably believes that the force is necessary to prevent or terminate the other person's unlawful entry of or attack on the person's dwelling, or curtilage, or occupied motor vehicle.
(c) With respect to property other than a dwelling, or curtilage, or an occupied motor vehicle, a person is justified in using reasonable force against another person if the person reasonably believes that the
force is necessary to immediately prevent or terminate the other person's trespass on or criminal interference with property lawfully in the person's possession, lawfully in possession of a member of the person's immediate family, or belonging to a person whose property the person has authority to protect. However, a person:
(1) is not justified in using deadly force; unless and
(2) does not have a duty to retreat;
only if that force is justified under subsection (a).
(d) A person is justified in using reasonable force, including deadly force, against another person and does not have a duty to retreat if the person reasonably believes that the force is necessary to prevent or stop the other person from hijacking, attempting to hijack, or otherwise seizing or attempting to seize unlawful control of an aircraft in flight. For purposes of this subsection, an aircraft is considered to be in flight while the aircraft is:
(1) on the ground in Indiana:
(A) after the doors of the aircraft are closed for takeoff; and
(B) until the aircraft takes off;
(2) in the airspace above Indiana; or
(3) on the ground in Indiana:
(A) after the aircraft lands; and
(B) before the doors of the aircraft are opened after landing.
(e) Notwithstanding subsections (a), (b), and (c), a person is not justified in using force if:
(1) the person is committing or is escaping after the commission of a crime;
(2) the person provokes unlawful action by another person with intent to cause bodily injury to the other person; or
(3) the person has entered into combat with another person or is the initial aggressor unless the person withdraws from the encounter and communicates to the other person the intent to do so and the other person nevertheless continues or threatens to continue unlawful action.
(f) Notwithstanding subsection (d), a person is not justified in using force if the person:
(1) is committing, or is escaping after the commission of, a crime;
(2) provokes unlawful action by another person, with intent to cause bodily injury to the other person; or
(3) continues to combat another person after the other person withdraws from the encounter and communicates the other person's intent to stop hijacking, attempting to hijack, or otherwise seizing or attempting to seize unlawful control of an aircraft in flight.
AN ACT to amend the Indiana Code concerning firearms and self-defense.
Be it enacted by the General Assembly of the State of Indiana:
SECTION 1. IC 35-41-3-2 IS AMENDED TO READ AS FOLLOWS [EFFECTIVE JULY 1, 2006]: Sec. 2. (a) A person is justified in using reasonable force against another person to protect the person or a third person from what the person reasonably believes to be the imminent use of unlawful force. However, a person:
(1) is justified in using deadly force; only and
(2) does not have a duty to retreat;
if the person reasonably believes that that force is necessary to prevent serious bodily injury to the person or a third person or the commission of a forcible felony. No person in this state shall be placed in legal jeopardy of any kind whatsoever for protecting the person or a third person by reasonable means necessary.
(b) A person:
(1) is justified in using reasonable force, including deadly force, against another person; and
(2) does not have a duty to retreat;
if the person reasonably believes that the force is necessary to prevent or terminate the other person's unlawful entry of or attack on the person's dwelling, or curtilage, or occupied motor vehicle.
(c) With respect to property other than a dwelling, or curtilage, or an occupied motor vehicle, a person is justified in using reasonable force against another person if the person reasonably believes that the
force is necessary to immediately prevent or terminate the other person's trespass on or criminal interference with property lawfully in the person's possession, lawfully in possession of a member of the person's immediate family, or belonging to a person whose property the person has authority to protect. However, a person:
(1) is not justified in using deadly force; unless and
(2) does not have a duty to retreat;
only if that force is justified under subsection (a).
(d) A person is justified in using reasonable force, including deadly force, against another person and does not have a duty to retreat if the person reasonably believes that the force is necessary to prevent or stop the other person from hijacking, attempting to hijack, or otherwise seizing or attempting to seize unlawful control of an aircraft in flight. For purposes of this subsection, an aircraft is considered to be in flight while the aircraft is:
(1) on the ground in Indiana:
(A) after the doors of the aircraft are closed for takeoff; and
(B) until the aircraft takes off;
(2) in the airspace above Indiana; or
(3) on the ground in Indiana:
(A) after the aircraft lands; and
(B) before the doors of the aircraft are opened after landing.
(e) Notwithstanding subsections (a), (b), and (c), a person is not justified in using force if:
(1) the person is committing or is escaping after the commission of a crime;
(2) the person provokes unlawful action by another person with intent to cause bodily injury to the other person; or
(3) the person has entered into combat with another person or is the initial aggressor unless the person withdraws from the encounter and communicates to the other person the intent to do so and the other person nevertheless continues or threatens to continue unlawful action.
(f) Notwithstanding subsection (d), a person is not justified in using force if the person:
(1) is committing, or is escaping after the commission of, a crime;
(2) provokes unlawful action by another person, with intent to cause bodily injury to the other person; or
(3) continues to combat another person after the other person withdraws from the encounter and communicates the other person's intent to stop hijacking, attempting to hijack, or otherwise seizing or attempting to seize unlawful control of an aircraft in flight.
Last edited by Jeff W; 02-04-2010 at 04:14 PM.